From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD0F5A0F for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:15:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2016 23:15:57 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,311,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="862864458" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2016 23:15:55 -0800 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:17:54 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Santosh Shukla Message-ID: <20160118071754.GY19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1452778117-30178-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <1452778117-30178-9-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <20160115062726.GS19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160118061125.GW19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 08/14] virtio: pci: extend virtio pci rw api for vfio interface 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: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:15:57 -0000 On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:15:40PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: > I am testing for virtio 1.0 and 0.95 for arm including your patch, > soon we;ll post the patch series that is rebased on / dependent on > below patchset: > - virtio 1.0 > - vfio-noiommu > - KDRV check by huawei > > IMO, we should start merging the dependent patches as because I'll Yep, agreed. That's why I was keep pushing Huawei for ACK and validation team for testing, although I have tested that. :) > have to rebase, then do regression across the platform at least for > x86/arm64 and it's quite a work now. > > Beside that I have few question specific to vfio in virtio pmd driver; > - vfio don't need resource_init functionality as it uses struct > rte_pci_dev but it need parsing so to make sure > 1. user has setted no_iommu mode > 2. virtio pci device attached to vfio-no-iommu driver or not. > > So for 1) I am thinking to add RTE_KDRV_VFIO_NOIOMMU mode and a helper > function like pci_vfio_is_iommu(), such that pc_xxx_scan() function > updates dev->kdrv with RTE_KDRV_VFIO_NOIOMMU at driver probe time. That sounds better to me. And that's also what I want to comment on your another patch [09/14], that we should try to avoid getting UIO/VFIO stuff inside virtio pmd driver, unless it's a must. (yes, I know UIO is already an example here, but I don't like it, and badly, I don't have the time to check if I can remove it.) > > case 2) would check for _noiommu mode and then would verify that > driver is attached or not? Sorry, very limited VFIO and noiommu knowledge, and I can't answer, so far. --yliu > > above two case applicable to both virtio spec 1.0 and 0.95. I have > done changes for those two case for v5 patch series,l any comment > welcome before I push patch for review. > > Thanks.