From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re:
 [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:54:14 +0800
Message-ID: <20160406045414.GR3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1455863563-15751-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <1455863563-15751-3-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <20160219070650.GS21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160405054733.GO3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160406041409.GA8362@plex.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@samsung.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
To: Flavio Leitner <fbl@sysclose.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C882C5A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  6 Apr 2016 06:52:38 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160406041409.GA8362@plex.redhat.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 Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:14:09AM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> > 
> > I'd vote for this one, as it sounds very clean to me. This would also
> > solve the block issue of this patch. Though it would break OVS, I'm thinking
> > that'd be okay, as OVS has dependence on DPDK version: what we need to
> > do is just to send few patches to OVS, and let it points to next release,
> > say DPDK v16.07. Flavio, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> There is a plan to use vHost PMD,

Great.

> so from OVS point of view the virtio
> stuff would be hidden because vhost PMD would look like just as a
> regular ethernet, right?

Yes.

	--yliu