From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365BE5A50 for ; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:09:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2016 22:09:58 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,359,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="707914049" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2016 22:09:57 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:11:26 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, Tetsuya Mukawa Message-ID: <20160524051126.GP5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20160509213124.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <38538365.t1P5Ut1YhZ@xps13> <573DE9BE.4070807@intel.com> <1891939.OmQDtN0y3O@xps13> <20160520103746.GA19260@bricha3-MOBL3> <20160523132426.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <5743388D.5080108@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5743388D.5080108@intel.com> 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: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:09:59 -0000 On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:06:21PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/23/2016 2:24 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:37:47AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > >> 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: > >>>> 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. > >> > >> Why not - if there is a sufficient increase in developer usability by doing so? > >> Having one API that saves an app from having to call 5 other APIs looks like > >> something that should always be given fair consideration. > > > > Good point. Judging that vhost is not the only virtual device we > > support, and it may also look reasonable to add something similar > > for others in future (say, IIRC, you proposed two more internally > > that also introduced similar APIs). So, instead of introducing a > > new API for each such vdev, may we introduce a common one? Say, > > a refined rte_eth_dev_attach(), including dev_configure(), > > queue_setup(), etc. > > > > This sounds good to me. If there is not objection, I will send a patch > and we can discuss based on patch. Let's wait and gather some comments first? --yliu > Something like: rte_eth_dev_attach_and_setup() > > Regards, > ferruh