From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDED87F1C for ; Fri, 20 May 2016 03:58:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2016 18:58:41 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,336,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="980894535" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2016 18:58:39 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:59:26 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, Tetsuya Mukawa Message-ID: <20160520015926.GG5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20160509213124.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <38538365.t1P5Ut1YhZ@xps13> <573DE9BE.4070807@intel.com> <1891939.OmQDtN0y3O@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1891939.OmQDtN0y3O@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] vhost: add support for dynamic vhost PMD creation 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: Fri, 20 May 2016 01:58:42 -0000 On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:44:44PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-05-19 17:28, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 5/19/2016 9:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-05-18 18:10, Ferruh Yigit: > > >> Add rte_eth_from_vhost() API to create vhost PMD dynamically from > > >> applications. > > > > > > How is it different from rte_eth_dev_attach() calling rte_eal_vdev_init()? > > > > > > > When used rte_eth_dev_attach(), application also needs to do: Sigh.. I was not awared that there is such interface. > > rte_eth_dev_configure() > > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup() > > rte_eth_tx_queue_setup() > > rte_eth_dev_start() > > > > rte_eth_from_vhost() does these internally, easier to use for applications. > > This argument is not sufficient. > We are not going to add new APIs just for wrapping others. +1. --yliu