From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD82A00E6 for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:20:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21552E81; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F272C6A for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:20:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jul 2019 19:20:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,476,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="167897582" Received: from npg-dpdk-virtio-tbie-2.sh.intel.com (HELO ___) ([10.67.104.66]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2019 19:20:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:18:36 +0800 From: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com> To: "Yu, Jin" <jin.yu@intel.com> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Liu, Changpeng" <changpeng.liu@intel.com>, "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>, "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>, LinLi <lilin24@baidu.com>, XunNi <nixun@baidu.com>, YuZhang <zhangyu31@baidu.com> Message-ID: <20190711021836.GA22227@___> References: <20190708183959.50293> <20190710104356.6580-1-jin.yu@intel.com> <20190710071806.GA24475@___> <B9FBC361811A3D4DBB02350807E29F7B0B930701@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <B9FBC361811A3D4DBB02350807E29F7B0B930701@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] vhost: support inflight share memory protocol feature X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:09:26AM +0800, Yu, Jin wrote: [...] > > > +int __rte_experimental > > > +rte_vhost_set_inflight_desc_split(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx, > > > + uint16_t idx); > > [...] > > > +int __rte_experimental > > > +rte_vhost_clr_inflight_desc_split(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx, > > > + uint16_t last_used_idx, uint16_t idx); > > [...] > > > +int __rte_experimental > > > +rte_vhost_set_last_inflight_io_split(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx, > > > + uint16_t idx); > > > > What will be different in the function prototype when we design above three > > APIs for packed ring? > The whole process is quite different as there are no avail ring and userd ring. I mean what will be different in the return value and parameters? Could you show us the expected function prototypes (i.e. just the function declarations) for packed ring?