From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wj0-f169.google.com (mail-wj0-f169.google.com
 [209.85.210.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379FA326C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  9 Jan 2017 12:26:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wj0-f169.google.com with SMTP id i20so63480235wjn.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 03:26:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=/p3LMHyD2jRZMhy0pnlx6XTVM4i5AYo62gGL3xhPVlk=;
 b=LL4KJXYGTfiIehbtkAvvgkRWRd0ULfliVcIHajc+qcy7C5l3RlSNiSlBF85A0/x/5q
 swB6sx2dD3WUODEiTGgYWs4VTbJyd2JUUlKiq2qzuI9hzoXSYqlMGav6CYDVivymdCwk
 e6E5jp8jswPDWKHw1HEuCOULYyyNLppD7T0UOJoYi8GXpNzQYaKYB4hfZxhi5ML05FzI
 72iD6ST8RTYr2AL/4PY6hwywcqzfTD0QyVqaF6kvbXbH7cGnvdS0cWM0pa5EsreT5nht
 Q6rNRxx12xH2584i9Xw8TrwVB46O0sFV1TAqN8GeqyTZjaZ2YUBrjF2P0cFrOZ2QRzvD
 W5iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent
 :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=/p3LMHyD2jRZMhy0pnlx6XTVM4i5AYo62gGL3xhPVlk=;
 b=VfuDjvIgYuuaQ+92DUWoVfAm7SjmQq/p24f2PQ3f+hf76jYOfjiBDzQdBeOlnp0+KN
 4+VCg2AekmgvoLUe6JLq3CSm+nGSZ4BuZ0yznbGQ7DIUZbuISwrSNtkai8biFjCfZLPp
 YjBoh8nZQXHoHmpHXXXciNu7vgU3RigBun5NWDfKFAxMb3Idtm8UljU7V2aFXP7okkea
 eTvsXxhSnZU+I3c4XypT90WUbQjW24C3cprWtBpuv477Md4Hxlop60QhBPIwERyxceXR
 blvjRVsKCdbB2ukWzWYRoWPzLAVQZ1n6lEtJizND7rTmhCOrltcy4tkEe/gvkItNSoQ1
 t2vQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIA1Q/FPIJ5J3XyXE2pDkr+BWSIeIF+AxK2CvDxjwcPgcZ+UhLn/4bevNJxVQdS5y9a
X-Received: by 10.194.117.134 with SMTP id ke6mr65250024wjb.123.1483961214857; 
 Mon, 09 Jan 2017 03:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u78sm18317054wma.11.2017.01.09.03.26.54
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Mon, 09 Jan 2017 03:26:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Mcnamara,
 John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, olivier.matz@6wind.com, "Zhang,
 Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>, "Dai, Wei" <wei.dai@intel.com>, "Wang,
 Xiao W" <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 12:26:53 +0100
Message-ID: <1542539.LCBRG7nZDl@xps13>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20170109035736.GA11691@debian>
References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0FEE0C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10241C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20170109035736.GA11691@debian>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for
	PMD-specific API
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:26:55 -0000

2017-01-09 11:57, Tiwei Bie:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 08:39:55PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > Well my first reply to this thread was asking why isn't the whole API global
> > > from the start then?
> > 
> > That's good question, and my preference would always be to have the
> > API to configure this feature as generic one.
> > I guess the main reason why it is not right now we don't reach an agreement
> > how this API should look like: 
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/047810.html
> > But I'll leave it to the author to provide the real reason here. 
> 
> Yes, currently this work just provided a thin layer over 82599's
> hardware MACsec offload support to allow users configure 82599's
> MACsec offload engine. The current API may be too specific and may
> need a rework to be used with other NICs.

I think it is a really good approach to start such API privately in a driver.
It will give us more time and experience to design a proper generic API.

Regarding the mbuf flag, it looks straight-forward, and as it is IEEE
standardized, I do not see any objection to add it now.
However, I will wait for the approval of Olivier - as maintainer of mbuf.