From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] virtio: Extend virtio-net PMD to
 support container environment
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 10:49:26 +0900
Message-ID: <56AEB9A6.7070803@igel.co.jp>
References: <1453108389-21006-2-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <1453374478-30996-6-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <20160129085723.GV4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160129091306.GW4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com (mail-pf0-f176.google.com
 [209.85.192.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F3436E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  1 Feb 2016 02:49:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x125so74626805pfb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:49:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160129091306.GW4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 2016/01/29 18:13, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:57:23PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:07:58PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> +static int
>>> +virt_read_pci_cfg(struct virtio_hw *hw, void *buf, size_t len, off_t offset)
>>> +{
>>> +	qtest_read_pci_cfg(hw, "virtio-net", buf, len, offset);
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void *
>>> +virt_get_mapped_addr(struct virtio_hw *hw, uint8_t bar,
>>> +		     uint32_t offset, uint32_t length)
>>> +{
>>> +	uint64_t base;
>>> +	uint64_t size;
>>> +
>>> +	if (qtest_get_bar_size(hw, "virtio-net", bar, &size) < 0) {
>>> +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "invalid bar: %u", bar);
>>> +		return NULL;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (offset + length < offset) {
>>> +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "offset(%u) + lenght(%u) overflows",
>>> +			offset, length);
>>> +		return NULL;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (offset + length > size) {
>>> +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR,
>>> +			"invalid cap: overflows bar space: %u > %"PRIu64,
>>> +			offset + length, size);
>>> +		return NULL;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (qtest_get_bar_addr(hw, "virtio-net", bar, &base) < 0) {
>>> +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "invalid bar: %u", bar);
>>> +		return NULL;
>>> +	}
>> So, I understood the usage now, and the cfg_ops abstraction doesn't look
>> good yet necessary to me.  For EAL managed pci device, bar length and
>> addr are stored at memory_resources[], and for your case, it's from the
>> qtest. And judging that it's compile time decision, I'd like it to be:
>>
>>     #ifdef /* RTE_LIBRTE_VIRTIO_HOST_MODE */
> Oops, sorry, I was wrong. Your code could be co-exist with the
> traditional virtio pmd driver, thus we can't do that.
>
> But still, I think dynamic "if ... else ..." should be better:
> there are just few places (maybe 4: bar_size, bar length, map
> device, read config) need that.

Thanks for comments.
I will use "if ... else ...." instead of introducing a cfg_ops.

Tetsuya


>
> On the other hand, if you really want to do that abstraction,
> you should go it with more fine granularity, such as the following
> methods I proposed, instead of the big one: get_cfg_addr(). In
> that way, we could avoid duplicate code.
>
> 	--yliu
>
>>     
>>     static uint32_t
>>     get_bar_size(...)
>>     {
>>     	return qtest_get_bar_size(..);
>>     }
>>     
>>     static uint64-t
>>     get_bar_addr(...)
>>     {
>>     	return qtest_get_bar_addr(..);
>>     }
>>     
>>     ...
>>     ...
>>     
>>     #else
>>     
>>     static  uint32_t
>>     get_bar_size(...)
>>     {
>>     	return dev->mem_resource[bar].addr;
>>     }
>>     
>>     ...
>>     
>>     }
>>     #endif
>>
>>
>> And then you just need do related changes at virtio_read_caps() and
>> get_cfg_addr(). That'd be much simpler, without introducing duplicate
>> code and uncessary complex.
>>
>> What do you think of that?
>>
>> 	--yliu
>>
>>> +
>>> +	return (void *)(base + offset);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct virtio_pci_cfg_ops virt_cfg_ops = {
>>> +	.map			= virt_map_pci_cfg,
>>> +	.unmap			= virt_unmap_pci_cfg,
>>> +	.get_mapped_addr	= virt_get_mapped_addr,
>>> +	.read			= virt_read_pci_cfg,
>>> +};
>>> +#endif /* RTE_LIBRTE_VIRTIO_HOST_MODE */