[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 6/7] virtio-user: add new virtual pci driver for virtio

[Tan, Jianfeng]

Hi Yuanhan,


On 6/6/2016 4:01 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:54:36AM +0000, Jianfeng Tan wrote:
>> +
>> +	desc_addr = (uint64_t)vq->mz->addr;
>> +	avail_addr = desc_addr + vq->vq_nentries * sizeof(struct vring_desc);
>> +	used_addr = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(avail_addr + offsetof(struct vring_avail,
>> +							 ring[vq->vq_nentries]),
>> +				   VIRTIO_PCI_VRING_ALIGN);
>> +
>> +	dev->vrings[queue_idx].num = vq->vq_nentries;
>> +	dev->vrings[queue_idx].desc = (void *)desc_addr;
>> +	dev->vrings[queue_idx].avail = (void *)avail_addr;
>> +	dev->vrings[queue_idx].used = (void *)used_addr;
> That would break 32 bit build. please also do more build and function
> test, with and without CONFIG_RTE_VIRTIO_VDEV enabled, to make sure
> we will not break anything. I'm sure you will meet build error without
> that option enabled.

Yes, thanks for pointing this out.

>
> BTW, let's be consistent with using VIRTIO_USER_DEV instead of VDEV
> or VIRTIO_VDEV?

OK.

>
> Another thing that might be a bit late to ask is that how about
> removing the vhost-net support? I mean, it's DPDK; if user stick
> to using DPDK virtio-user, he will stick to using DPDK vhost-user
> as well, but not the vhost-net. So, let's keep it being simple
> first. And if there is really a need for vhost-net, we can add it
> back later, easily. Makes sense?

Yes, it makes sense, because from an initial test, I see low 
performance. Or anyone who are willing to use it can comment?

Thanks,
Jianfeng
>
> I also would suggest you do a rebase based on my latest tree.

No problem.

Thanks,
Jianfeng

>
> 	--yliu