From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vhost: add support for dynamic vhost PMD
	creation
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:03:20 +0200
Message-ID: <1638192.xyCv6GChDS@xps13>
References: <20160509213124.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <1891939.OmQDtN0y3O@xps13> <20160520103746.GA19260@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD71BADEB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 14:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n129so79624815wmn.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160520103746.GA19260@bricha3-MOBL3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-05-20 11:37, Bruce Richardson:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:44:44PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-05-19 17:28, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > On 5/19/2016 9:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2016-05-18 18:10, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > >> Add rte_eth_from_vhost() API to create vhost PMD dynamically from
> > > >> applications.
> > > > 
> > > > How is it different from rte_eth_dev_attach() calling rte_eal_vdev_init()?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > When used rte_eth_dev_attach(), application also needs to do:
> > > rte_eth_dev_configure()
> > > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()
> > > rte_eth_tx_queue_setup()
> > > rte_eth_dev_start()
> > > 
> > > rte_eth_from_vhost() does these internally, easier to use for applications.
> > 
> > This argument is not sufficient.
> > We are not going to add new APIs just for wrapping others.
> 
> Why not - if there is a sufficient increase in developer usability by doing so?
> Having one API that saves an app from having to call 5 other APIs looks like
> something that should always be given fair consideration. There will obviously
> be other factors to take into account too, like numbers and types of parameters
> to the replacement call vs the sub-calls, but I don't think a blanket ban is
> justified.

Yes, everything can be discussed, especially the ethdev API which is far
from being perfect :)