From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 09/13] vhost: add API bind a virtq to a specific core Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:25:59 +0800 Message-ID: <20151020062559.GR3115@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1444369572-1157-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1444369572-1157-10-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "marcel@redhat.com" , "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "Xie, Huawei" Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C4B8E7A for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:25:55 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:16:23AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote: > On 10/9/2015 1:46 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > From: Changchun Ouyang > > > > The new API rte_vhost_core_id_set() is to bind a virtq to a specific > > core, while the another API rte_vhost_core_id_get() is for getting > > the bind core for a virtq. > Where is the absolute necessity to put switching/application logic into > vhost virt queue structure? I don't think it's a must, and we can drop it. > Besides, suggest seperate vhost example patchset and vhost library > patchset so that if we have issue with one, it doesn't stop another > being merged. That's what I've done: patch 1-8 are for enabling vhost-user mq, while other patches are for vhost-switch example. Maybe I should send out 2 patch sets, one for each. But, anyway, please help focus on reviewing path 1-8. --yliu > > > > The usage, which will be introduced soon, could be find at examles/vhost/main.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang > > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu > > --- >