12/07/2022 14:26, Thomas Monjalon:
> 12/07/2022 11:16, Maxime Coquelin:
> >
> > On 5/18/21 09:34, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > There is a layer violation in the vDPA API which encourages to destroy
> > > a full device with rte_dev_remove() instead of just closing the port.
> > > The plan is to introduce a new function in 21.08, promote in 21.11,
> > > and deprecate rte_vdpa_get_rte_device() in 21.11.
> [...]
> > > +* vdpa: The vDPA API should not try to manipulate or export
> > > + any ``rte_device`` object, which belongs to the bus layer.
> > > + The function ``rte_vdpa_get_rte_device()`` will be deprecated in 21.11,
> > > + when its usage will be replaced with a function ``rte_vdpa_close()``.
> > > + The new function should enter in 21.08 and get promoted to stable in
> > > 21.11.
> > > + A port close function will allow to close a single port without
> > > destroying
> > > + the rest of the device.
> >
> > Maybe there was some changes since you posted the announce, but I don't
> > see why rte_vdpa_close() would be needed. It seems the only user of
> > rte_vdpa_get_rte_device() is the internal vDPA example, and it only use
> > it to get and print the device name.
>
> You're right, it was an oversight.
> So we need only to get the rte_device name.
>
> I propose to replace
> struct rte_device *rte_vdpa_get_rte_device(struct rte_vdpa_device
> *vdpa_dev);
> with
> const char *rte_vdpa_get_name(void);
sorry, I missed a parameter :)
It would be:
const char *rte_vdpa_get_name(struct rte_vdpa_device *vdpa_dev);
Or do you prefer "rte_vdpa_get_device_name"?
