On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:13:18AM -0700, Rich Lane wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Rich, would you help try by adding following line there and
> do a test? It would be great if this patch has your Tested-by :)
>
> ? ? internal->vid = vid;
>
> ?
> The problem is new_device has already returned before that point because
> find_internal_resource failed.
Oh. right.
> I suggest adding a cookie parameter to?rte_vhost_driver_register and passing
> the cookie to each of the vhost_ops. The PMD can use pmd_internals for the
> cookie and the whole internal_list can go away.
TBH, I don't quite like messing rte_vhost_driver_register here.
Maybe I could switch back to the old way to find_internal_resource by
ifname. In such case, I need introduce an API to expose that field
from vhost lib.
> ps. Could you push git branches somewhere for these larger vhost patch series?
> That would make it a lot easier to test than getting patches individually from
> patchwork.
Yes, indeeded. And I have a tree on dpdk.org, but that is mainly for
holding patches for the mainline. I'm thinking I may could add a new
branch there, say staging, just for testing. Thomas, will it work for
you? Or, should I push it to github?
--yliu
