From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] vhost: Add API to get MTU value
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:00:59 +0800
Message-ID: <20170316080059.GT18844@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <20170213142820.8964-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20170312163406.17714-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20170312163406.17714-5-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: aconole@redhat.com, sodey@sonusnet.com, jianfeng.tan@intel.com,
 thomas.monjalon@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159B01396
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:02:44 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170312163406.17714-5-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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 Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 05:34:01PM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> This patch implements the function for the application to
> get the MTU value.

I'm thinking the other way. As we are making vhost being generic, it
doesn't make too much sense now to store a net specific value at vhost
layer. I'm thinking we may could introduce a vhost-user request handler,
something like:

	rte_vhost_driver_register_msg_handler(socket, handler);

All vhost-user message then will goto the driver's sepcific handler.
if it's handlered, do nothing in vhost lib. Otherwise, we handle it
in vhost lib.

In this way, you could handle the mtu message inside vhost-pmd; thus,
there is no need to introduce one more (net specific) API.

Thoughts?

	--yliu