From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1FA37AF for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:09:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9F120B28; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:09:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=6VJFo3PuaTXFG4a u/CMUPpiI5POhQD2nnXgbYCtHXAg=; b=H0pIghcCJcsixX+LYmISBSxr97kowYK ZFl+hPRlId5ckg40nuLSldCNrCXSQXr/mnCTPMXkTW2g+V/c29aVGdS9baQWYoKa EKOncsCZ1TD2itdB+s+IbGdmO8DCbXB3mKvX6zpH5NgKwzSIgJdxrCWx6013stnl K2RH2QAtDWZ4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=6VJFo3PuaTXFG4au/CMUPpiI5POhQD2nnXgbYCtHXAg=; b=S6XtSvD2 lrYf4hjspFFAIf7h9wT74PeDMdAJoGwboAhpKPUoB9XNsb+JErEx1KhjdsE3hLmd iJzXGCo4EGZePQQaubXsR/8h77JqCmTlH8qGdjlmmC/9YCR1+n7e/ph13X8mXoFu 1ZCmsc9mqqMsDwljElCtOofdopfsAYDld/ZziRCuPKNjLZrEqszA1G6SMbqap+eH N7WMO18KfipyWznjAJU4R8P7oU2Gto0QwF/gwiIeXK04y/sDvNBh4hsP8V38PKxY gxDgF+ltZFiX4LlqQxbzaxjzerJPiq1PHK3wqtWpQhohaA8v/eqtgWTKZVgMAvtP h2WFkWk+/EY/4Q== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: XgxOpaH5gTFuqlXClW6Ypn4r/d5yR/C9CqX86phshIxf 1499695784 Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ACC8424774; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:09:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: santosh Cc: Olivier Matz , dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, shreyansh.jain@nxp.com, gaetan.rivet@6wind.com, sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:09:43 +0200 Message-ID: <15653957.xZGtGGaVPI@xps> In-Reply-To: <37dadcda-0407-252d-d200-c33bacd0dae6@caviumnetworks.com> References: <20170608110513.22548-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com> <2047844.48kPz2y3QI@xps> <37dadcda-0407-252d-d200-c33bacd0dae6@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 11/12] mempool: honor iova mode in virt2phy X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:09:45 -0000 10/07/2017 15:56, santosh: > On Monday 10 July 2017 07:21 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 10/07/2017 15:30, santosh: > >> Hi Olivier, > >> > >> On Monday 10 July 2017 05:57 PM, Olivier Matz wrote: > >>> I didn't check the patchset in detail, but in my understanding, > >>> what we call physaddr in dpdk is actually a bus address. Shouldn't > >>> we start to rename some of these fields and functions to avoid > >>> confusion? > >> Agree. > >> While working on iova mode thing and reading these vir2phy api - > >> confused me more. Actually it should be iova2va, va2iova or pa2iova,iova2pa.. > >> where iova address is nothing but bus address Or we should refer to linux > >> semantics. > >> > >> We thought of addressing semantics after this series, Not a priority in IMO. > > I think it is a priority to start with semantics. > > The work is too hard with wrong semantic otherwise. > > Sorry, I don;t agree with you. Semantic shouldn't lower the iova priority. > iova framework is blocking SoC's. w/o iova framework : One has to live with > hackish solution for their SoC. > > Semantic change in any-case could be pipelined. It shouldn't be like > Semantics change gets priority and therefore it blocks other SoCs. I am not saying it is blocking. I just say that you have not started your work by the beginning, and now it make reviews difficult (from what I understand). You must make all the efforts to make your patches easier to understand and accept.