[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/6] Virtio-net PMD: QEMU QTest extension for container

[Tetsuya Mukawa]

Hi Yuanhan,

Sorry for late replying.

On 2016/06/03 13:17, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:30:18PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> Hi Yuanhan,
>>
>> On 2016/06/02 16:31, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>>> But still, I'd ask do we really need 2 virtio for container solutions?
>>
>> I appreciate your comments.
> 
> No, I appreciate your effort for contributing to DPDK! vhost-pmd stuff
> is just brilliant!
> 
>> Let me have time to discuss it with our team.
> 
> I'm wondering could we have one solution only. IMO, the drawback of
> having two (quite different) solutions might outweighs the benefit
> it takes. Say, it might just confuse user.

I agree with this.
If we have 2 solutions, it would confuse the DPDK users.

> 
> OTOH, I'm wondering could you adapt to Jianfeng's solution? If not,
> what's the missing parts, and could we fix it? I'm thinking having
> one unified solution will keep ours energy/focus on one thing, making
> it better and better! Having two just splits the energy; it also
> introduces extra burden for maintaining.

Of course, I adopt Jiangeng's solution basically.
Actually, his solution is almost similar I tried to implement at first.

I guess here is pros/cons of 2 solutions.

[Jianfeng's solution]
- Pros
Don't need to invoke QEMU process.
- Cons
If virtio-net specification is changed, we need to implement it by
ourselves. Also, LSC interrupt and control queue functions are not
supported yet.
I agree both functions may not be so important, and if we need it
we can implement them, but we need to pay energy to implement them.

[My solution]
- Pros
Basic principle of my implementation is not to reinvent the wheel.
We can use a virtio-net device of QEMU implementation, it means we don't
need to maintain virtio-net device by ourselves, and we can use all of
functions supported by QEMU virtio-net device.
- Cons
Need to invoke QEMU process.


Anyway, we can choose one of belows.
1. Take advantage of invoking less processes.
2. Take advantage of maintainability of virtio-net device.

Honestly, I'm OK if my solution is not merged.
Thus, it should be decided to let DPDK better.

What do you think?
Which is better for DPDK?

Thanks,
Tetsuya

> 
> 	--yliu
>