From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C882C5A for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:52:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2016 21:52:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,446,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="778997093" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.191]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2016 21:52:36 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:54:14 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Flavio Leitner Cc: Ilya Maximets , dev@dpdk.org, Dyasly Sergey , Thomas Monjalon , "Xie, Huawei" Message-ID: <20160406045414.GR3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1455863563-15751-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <1455863563-15751-3-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <20160219070650.GS21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160405054733.GO3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160406041409.GA8362@plex.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160406041409.GA8362@plex.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local. 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 04:52:39 -0000 On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:14:09AM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > > > I'd vote for this one, as it sounds very clean to me. This would also > > solve the block issue of this patch. Though it would break OVS, I'm thinking > > that'd be okay, as OVS has dependence on DPDK version: what we need to > > do is just to send few patches to OVS, and let it points to next release, > > say DPDK v16.07. Flavio, please correct me if I'm wrong. > > There is a plan to use vHost PMD, Great. > so from OVS point of view the virtio > stuff would be hidden because vhost PMD would look like just as a > regular ethernet, right? Yes. --yliu