From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f169.google.com (mail-wj0-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FE12BA8 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:17:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wj0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v7so110442904wjy.2 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 01:17:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZBmjNA7V8LT6yTNV7dDCCY8k+gAKeRIHkUBoIhjXTx4=; b=ttMPuNnjqSaEnIfWD8XkX/noF1dJg9Rh2l7V5arGycwWhpxQ8lD0YmEmaM/wC4mhYx auiDb3aCN9hNurrj/B42oEPGi2DdrPxg23rAuRk4YoHzwapXZ6gQ0/jGrEdUQWwzRCHQ SZ2wvrFFBYqV7i79lP8kHnwwDhhvCfhS/I0c81sTpnqam0jXaVeeNfRfG1fP1AtagloC 3mEbKg0SqA5tn5v2vBw5w+CtEGTRjYEaSFlRrWQo3novZvQP+SqvG7KQXaa+llK6x57w GX6nIeqZ1S+reJde7VWmZoTX7JIC4x4Fs1E4+BZ58VPGxPEkU17tYKt2QVRXsUvDiX4/ dWiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZBmjNA7V8LT6yTNV7dDCCY8k+gAKeRIHkUBoIhjXTx4=; b=gVfsJLPSEi30+pj5frZDXaCTIdiB30gSTW0BbcG5xR3b1nr7h6rtLHLUREwgCjelKg oMvh9C+Xv6IgZJsLqRYM8qODcg/DO6kV8LlmR0/9BsaSQwn127c9B48Rfznb90Q6QeK3 PA2Pz1v3p6CP9L02W29wyVOFi8rBLbbLcWBHjlz5+78Qesd2mpgX1k6RrDWJJ8TNgN3q FRfmRQtpws0+jZ45qRz0xi51sAj4vKGFRwxbSL5YNmlRrqEh3HBbQEg2WBxJJtldXXEr HmPdwuRMpNP15Tb5X1loKb/j/MCreVzDKzCCyUrbHboaL5pgBIDnvnJ6OfNveEMxd6uM fPrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJFK7C3CM3MA75jO+gLWlASDthsuD4KSItuPEZ8ECksY8KdxI8HUowO+cwS1A3/7UYE X-Received: by 10.194.209.169 with SMTP id mn9mr5916342wjc.114.1481966229108; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 01:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g17sm10606672wjs.38.2016.12.17.01.17.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 17 Dec 2016 01:17:08 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Shreyansh Jain , Stephen Hemminger Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:17:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3056303.onhaf7h26E@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20161216121522.58281062@xeon-e3> References: <20161214235920.12877-1-sthemmin@microsoft.com> <17034171.EHDWhStFHz@xps13> <20161216121522.58281062@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] hyperv: VMBUS support infrastucture X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:17:09 -0000 2016-12-16 12:15, Stephen Hemminger: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:09:02 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-12-15 09:26, Stephen Hemminger: > > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:19:44 +0530 > > > Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > > > It is not a scale-able model where we have to change eth_driver/eth_dev > > > > for every new device type, other than PCI. Maybe VMBus is _very_ close > > > > to PCI so no changes are required in PCI layer (common, linuxapp, > > > > bsdapp) - but, for others it won't stop there. > > > > > > > > At the least, rte_pci_driver/rte_pci_device should be removed from > > > > eth_driver & rte_eth_dev, respectively - relying on rte_driver and > > > > rte_device. > > > > > > > > This is the primary reason work on the SoC patchset and now the new Bus > > > > model is being done. > > > > > > Agreed. the better long term model is to use C style inheritance where > > > rte_pci_driver has eth_driver inside. > > > The other alternative is to make the second element an opaque pointer. > > > > > > But that was too big a change, and not necessary to get VMBUS to work. > > > Longer term refactoring will take more effort. Go ahead and address it > > > with a better bus model, but that probably isn't going to be ready for > > > a couple of releases. > > > > We'll consider only the approach of generalizing the bus model for integr ation. > > Stephen, you are welcome to help make it happen and rebase your work > > on top of this new model. > > Thanks > > I will generalize it to PCI and VMBUS only. I am not inventing a generic SOC > model since that is something that I don't have sufficient knowledge. This > fits the YAGNI principle. There is already a work in progress to generalize bus handling. It is not specific to SoC design. It is just a better design to add new buses.