From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C0C2EDA for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:58:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2016 23:58:30 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,556,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="891373364" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2016 23:58:28 -0800 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:59:24 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Pavel Fedin Message-ID: <20160112075924.GQ26062@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1446748276-132087-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1452426182-86851-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1452426182-86851-5-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <009b01d14d0d$47c85540$d758ffc0$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009b01d14d0d$47c85540$d758ffc0$@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp, mst@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] virtio/vdev: add a new vdev named eth_cvio X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:58:30 -0000 On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:45:59AM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > > See inline Hi, Please strip unrelated context, so that people could reach to your comments as quick as possible, otherwise, people could easily get lost from the long patch. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jianfeng Tan [mailto:jianfeng.tan@intel.com] > > + struct rte_mbuf *m = NULL; > > + if (dev->dev_type == RTE_ETH_DEV_PCI) > > + vq->offset = (uintptr_t)&m->buf_addr; > > +#ifdef RTE_VIRTIO_VDEV > > + else { > > + vq->offset = (uintptr_t)&m->buf_physaddr; > > Not sure, but shouldn't these be swapped? Originally, for PCI devices, we used buf_physaddr. And this reply just servers as an example only :) --yliu