On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:07:51PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

2016-09-18 16:27, Yuanhan Liu:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:35:53AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

2016-09-14 15:21, Yuanhan Liu:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:10:48AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

2016-09-14 12:43, Yuanhan Liu:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 05:10:09PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

2016-09-13 14:47, Ciara Loftus:

quoted

In some cases when using the vHost PMD, certain vHost library functions
may still need to be accessed. One such example is the
rte_vhost_get_queue_num function which returns the number of virtqueues
reported by the guest - information which is not exposed by the PMD.

This commit introduces a new rte_eth_vhost function that returns the
'vid' associated with a given port id. This allows the PMD user to call
vHost library functions which require the 'vid' value.

I think we should not add any API to the PMDs.

In general, I agree with you.

quoted

Maybe you are looking for a generic API in ethdev.

But maybe it's a bit hard to define a "right" generic API here. For this
case, the generic API I can think of could be:

- an API to get queue num, like rte_eth_get_queue_enabled_num
  I barely know NIC pmd drivers, but I doubt it's useful/meaningful for them.

- an API to get a PMD driver private (or specific) data.
  For vhost-pmd, it's vid. Again, I don't know what it could be for other nic
  drivers.

  This one may be a better option here, because it expose a key field to
  the application, vid, with which the application can invoke more vhost
  APIs. And apparently, it's not feasible to try to define a generic API
  for some (if not each) vhost APIs.

There could be a similar need in other PMD.
If we can get an opaque identifier of the device which is not the port id,
we could call some specific functions of the driver not implemented in
the generic ethdev API.

That means you have to add/export the PMD API first. Isn't it against what
you are proposing -- "I think we should not add any API to the PMDs" ;)

Yes you are totally right :)
Except that in vhost case, we would not have any API in the PMD.
But it would allow to have some specific API in other PMDs for the features
which do not fit in a generic API.

So, does that mean you are okay with this patch now? I mean, okay to introduce
a vhost PMD API?

It means I would be in favor of introducing API in drivers for very specific
features.
In this case, I am not sure that retrieving an internal id is very specific.

It's not, instead, it's very generic. The "internal id" is actually the
public interface to vhost-user application, like "fd" to file APIs.

Instead of introducing a few specific wrappers/APIs, I'd prefer to
introduce a generic one to get the handle, and let the application to
call other vhost APIs.

	--yliu