From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51570) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3K1V-0007xh-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:09:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3K1R-0003c0-8n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:09:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53640) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3K1R-0003bj-36 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:09:05 -0400 Message-ID: <557A939C.3040702@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:09:00 +0800 From: Jason Wang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1433514749-19584-1-git-send-email-pagupta@redhat.com> <557530D5.2050807@redhat.com> <1708114508.14108746.1434023391416.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1708114508.14108746.1434023391416.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] net:Enable vhost with vhostforce, vhost options for guests without MSI-X support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Pankaj Gupta , mst@redhat.com Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, aliguori@amazon.com On 06/11/2015 07:49 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote: >> On 06/05/2015 10:32 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote: >>> We use vhostforce to enable vhost even if Guests don't have MSI-X >>> support >>> and we fall back to QEMU virtio-net. This patch will enable vhost >>> unconditionally >>> whenever we have vhostforce='ON' or vhost='ON'. >>> >>> Initially, I wanted to remove vhostforce completely as an additional >>> argument. >>> But after discussing this in mailing list found that some programs are >>> using vhostforce >>> and some vhost. So, we want to keep semantics of both the options. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta >>> --- >>> net/tap.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/tap.c b/net/tap.c >>> index d1ca314..4618359 100644 >>> --- a/net/tap.c >>> +++ b/net/tap.c >>> @@ -649,13 +649,13 @@ static void net_init_tap_one(const NetdevTapOptions >>> *tap, NetClientState *peer, >>> } >>> } >>> >>> - if (tap->has_vhost ? tap->vhost : >>> - vhostfdname || (tap->has_vhostforce && tap->vhostforce)) { >>> + if ((tap->has_vhost ? tap->vhost : >>> + vhostfdname) || tap->vhostforce) { The change here seems useless. >>> VhostNetOptions options; >>> >>> options.backend_type = VHOST_BACKEND_TYPE_KERNEL; >>> options.net_backend = &s->nc; >>> - options.force = tap->has_vhostforce && tap->vhostforce; >>> + options.force = true; >>> >>> if (tap->has_vhostfd || tap->has_vhostfds) { >>> vhostfd = monitor_fd_param(cur_mon, vhostfdname, &err); >> In this case, I believe there's no need to have vhost_net_query() and >> query_guest_notifiers() callbacks (and maybe more others). > I also thought on this. If same functions can be used by some other module in future? > If not, I was thinking to remove those in another patch. I could not think a usage of this in the future. > > Does the main functionality looks OK? See comment above and I prefer to remove all unnecessary functions. Thanks