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?