From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] net/virtio: rationalize setting of Rx/Tx
	handlers
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 20:31:06 +0800
Message-ID: <20170901123106.GW9736@yliu-home>
References: <20170831134015.1383-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <20170831134015.1383-8-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <20170901091916.GT9736@yliu-home>
 <20170901095216.kqx7lwdiktq7y5zs@neon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, stephen@networkplumber.org,
 stable@dpdk.org
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com (mail-pg0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B6056A1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  1 Sep 2017 14:31:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b8so160291pgn.5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 05:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170901095216.kqx7lwdiktq7y5zs@neon>
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 Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:17AM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > > @@ -1534,7 +1554,6 @@ eth_virtio_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> > >  	RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM < sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf));
> > >  
> > >  	eth_dev->dev_ops = &virtio_eth_dev_ops;
> > > -	eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = &virtio_xmit_pkts;
> > >  
> > >  	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY) {
> > >  		if (!hw->virtio_user_dev) {
> > > @@ -1544,12 +1563,8 @@ eth_virtio_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> > >  		}
> > >  
> > >  		virtio_set_vtpci_ops(hw);
> > > -		if (hw->use_simple_rxtx) {
> > > -			eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = virtio_xmit_pkts_simple;
> > > -			eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = virtio_recv_pkts_vec;
> > > -		} else {
> > > -			rx_func_get(eth_dev);
> > > -		}
> > > +		set_rxtx_funcs(eth_dev);
> > 
> > No need to invoke it here?
> 
> I wanted to stay consistent with previous code.
> 
> I'm not very used to work with secondary processes, so I'm not 100% it
> is ok, but in my understanding, in that case the configuration is done
> first by the primary process, and the secondary the pointers to the
> rx/tx funcs. I suppose their value can be different than primary ones.

It probably needs some testing, but I think it should be okay, because
the rx/tx funcs will always be updated at dev_start in this patch.

	--yliu