[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] vhost: handle VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE request

[Yuanhan Liu]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:53:45PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 12/02/2015 05:43 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_BASE request is used to tell the backend (dpdk
> >vhost-user) where we should log dirty pages, and how big the log
> >buffer is.
> >
> >This request introduces a new payload:
> >
> >	typedef struct VhostUserLog {
> >		uint64_t mmap_size;
> >		uint64_t mmap_offset;
> >	} VhostUserLog;
> >
> >Also, a fd is delivered from QEMU by ancillary data.
> >
> >With those info given, an area of memory is mmaped, assigned
> >to dev->log_base, for logging dirty pages.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>
> >---
> >  lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h             |  2 ++
> >  lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user/vhost-net-user.c  |  7 ++++-
> >  lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user/vhost-net-user.h  |  6 ++++
> >  lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user/virtio-net-user.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user/virtio-net-user.h |  1 +
> >  5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> >index 5687452..416dac2 100644
> >--- a/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> >+++ b/lib/librte_vhost/rte_virtio_net.h
> >@@ -127,6 +127,8 @@ struct virtio_net {
> >  #define IF_NAME_SZ (PATH_MAX > IFNAMSIZ ? PATH_MAX : IFNAMSIZ)
> >  	char			ifname[IF_NAME_SZ];	/**< Name of the tap device or socket path. */
> >  	uint32_t		virt_qp_nb;	/**< number of queue pair we have allocated */
> >+	uint64_t		log_size;	/**< Size of log area */
> >+	uint8_t			*log_base;	/**< Where dirty pages are logged */
> >  	void			*priv;		/**< private context */
> >  	struct vhost_virtqueue	*virtqueue[VHOST_MAX_QUEUE_PAIRS * 2];	/**< Contains all virtqueue information. */
> >  } __rte_cache_aligned;
> 
> This (and other changes in patch 2 breaks the librte_vhost ABI
> again, so you'd need to at least add a deprecation note to 2.2 to be
> able to do it in 2.3 at all according to the ABI policy.

I was thinking that adding a new field (instead of renaming it or
removing it) isn't an ABI break. So, I was wrong?

> 
> Perhaps a better option would be adding some padding to the structs
> now for 2.2 since the vhost ABI is broken there anyway. That would
> at least give a chance to keep it compatible from 2.2 to 2.3.

It will not be compatible, unless we add exact same fields (not
something like uint8_t pad[xx]). Otherwise, the pad field renaming
is also an ABI break, right?

Thomas, should I write an ABI deprecation note? Can I make it for
v2.2 release If I make one tomorrow? (Sorry that I'm not awared
of that it would be an ABI break).

	--yliu