From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780C22C69
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  6 Apr 2016 07:36:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2016 22:36:24 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,447,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="926402631"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.191])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2016 22:36:22 -0700
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:38:00 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>
Cc: Flavio Leitner <fbl@sysclose.org>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Sergey Dyasly <s.dyasly@samsung.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20160406053800.GU3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <506067238.174981459919460416.JavaMail.weblogic@eumlwas01>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <506067238.174981459919460416.JavaMail.weblogic@eumlwas01>
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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 05:36:52 -0000

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:11:01AM +0000, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> > There is a plan to use vHost PMD, so from OVS point of view the virtio
> > stuff would be hidden because vhost PMD would look like just as a
> > regular ethernet, right?
> 
> But we still need to have access to virtqueue_enabe/disable notifications to
> work properly. How this will be done if virtqueue will be hidden from user?

Do you mean vring_state_changed() callback? It will not be removed.
BTW, when using vhost pmd, you will not be aware of such callback:
it will be translated to a RTE_ETH_EVENT_QUEUE_STATE interrupt.

OTOH, I have a simple git grep of "vq" from ovs dpdk netdev code,
it returns nothing. So, I don't think that will matter?

	--yliu