On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 3:36 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > There is a layer violation in the vDPA API for getting the device name. > Instead of providing the name at vDPA level, > a function returns the low-level device object.
Exposing a rte_device (as an opaque pointer) in upper device classes seems a good thing to me. With the API rework I proposed, we will have accessors to get this object characteristics (like here, a name identifying it). Having the vDPA API returns a pointer to a rte_device object makes it possible to reuse those accessors, nothing more needed. If the rte_device object is extended in any (unforeseen at the moment) way in the future, it would still be a matter of using the relevant accessor. No update needed in the vDPA API at this point in the future. On the other hand, what you propose here seems to go the other way. With each device classes needing to expose, through its own means / API, the underlying rte_device characteristics. -- David Marchand
