From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vhost: add support for dynamic vhost PMD
 creation
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 18:06:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5743388D.5080108@intel.com>
References: <20160509213124.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <38538365.t1P5Ut1YhZ@xps13> <573DE9BE.4070807@intel.com>
 <1891939.OmQDtN0y3O@xps13> <20160520103746.GA19260@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <20160523132426.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1761593A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:06:52 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20160523132426.GK5641@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 5/23/2016 2:24 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:37:47AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:44:44PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2016-05-19 17:28, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>> On 5/19/2016 9:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 2016-05-18 18:10, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>> Add rte_eth_from_vhost() API to create vhost PMD dynamically from
>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is it different from rte_eth_dev_attach() calling rte_eal_vdev_init()?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When used rte_eth_dev_attach(), application also needs to do:
>>>> rte_eth_dev_configure()
>>>> rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()
>>>> rte_eth_tx_queue_setup()
>>>> rte_eth_dev_start()
>>>>
>>>> rte_eth_from_vhost() does these internally, easier to use for applications.
>>>
>>> This argument is not sufficient.
>>> We are not going to add new APIs just for wrapping others.
>>
>> Why not - if there is a sufficient increase in developer usability by doing so?
>> Having one API that saves an app from having to call 5 other APIs looks like
>> something that should always be given fair consideration.
> 
> Good point. Judging that vhost is not the only virtual device we
> support, and it may also look reasonable to add something similar
> for others in future (say, IIRC, you proposed two more internally
> that also introduced similar APIs). So, instead of introducing a
> new API for each such vdev, may we introduce a common one? Say,
> a refined rte_eth_dev_attach(), including dev_configure(),
> queue_setup(), etc.
> 

This sounds good to me. If there is not objection, I will send a patch
and we can discuss based on patch.
Something like: rte_eth_dev_attach_and_setup()

Regards,
ferruh