On 2015/12/28 20:06, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > On 2015/12/24 23:05, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: >> Hi Tetsuya, >> >> After several days' studying your patch, I have some questions as follows: >> >> 1. Is physically-contig memory really necessary? >> This is a too strong requirement IMHO. IVSHMEM doesn't require this in its >> original meaning. So how do you think of >> Huawei Xie's idea of using virtual address for address translation? (In >> addition, virtual address of mem_table could be >> different in application and QTest, but this can be addressed because >> SET_MEM_TABLE msg will be intercepted by >> QTest) > Hi Jianfeng, > > Thanks for your suggestion. > Huawei's idea may solve contig-mem restriction. > Let me have time to check it more.
Hi Jianfeng, I made sure we can remove the restriction with Huawei's idea. One thing I concern is below. If we don't use contiguous memory, this PMD will not work with other 'physical' PMDs like e1000 PMD, virtio-net PMD, and etc. (This is because allocated memory may not be physically contiguous.) One of examples is that if we implement like above, in QEMU guest, we can handle a host NIC directly, but in container, we will not be able to handle the device. This will be a restriction for this virtual addressing changing. Do you know an use case that the user wants to handle 'physical' PMD and 'virtual' virtio-net PMD together? Tetsuya,
