From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B189A04B4; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:00:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7931C199; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:00:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8061C193 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:00:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B460E21C47; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:59:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=krMXs+yKcgw9+JFmlBhkFQmY98nsSowhaDondAdb5Bk=; b=csQ8OUd22DIA HX60Kf4Xhck14m/jAbU9c9Dlpw8ZPs5AapsTWkHP3OgUfDs+AwFp7VB8PC+0OWrq QwvzjSHjrcZjJwPudzcSsn7yS5dikqcE3E7hDVIBvFw6Aw1Tb5WsZQficzXmiHPb 2F7eiBVi3lf6IC27rUQ6uxhe+YVZV08= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=krMXs+yKcgw9+JFmlBhkFQmY98nsSowhaDondAdb5 Bk=; b=kPn5ZVIcbSg9zmMs3SV2UoX+YTW2AXIIRbO6p1HtmNUVl0m5ffYH+d3+H M5T0jFBds49aYmZSt2kmQ+jsiikgUZIo4HcQVevUfz59JgllprdT8tMd4ZOodXT1 vQ+aDK5jp09WAKVIxV9myUROBUjflW9g6cUwJYQBlFWw81vaC/GTmYAsT6eYKXbM mTDLwPtO5x2lGlBRxx5gTlmfTS3EGhkgJ+kVjpACo3EZmhUd/StI3tIeNcZAzh3p H6PHp/vgBoYG9/HpSIhvwxMHFs2k+fYRr7VURqi3R23IW3GFrmRp/H7MqwNn6w4y RKh4opjOZz7kUEard0cjIMfdemjEw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvuddggeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 718318005C; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:59:58 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Matan Azrad Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:59:56 +0100 Message-ID: <1656917.zmMfgD2qXj@xps> In-Reply-To: <095f329c-a6ec-b33b-d4bd-b2e84e58c619@solarflare.com> References: <20191029050312.2715-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <095f329c-a6ec-b33b-d4bd-b2e84e58c619@solarflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v15 3/7] ethdev: add validation to offloads set by PMD X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 08/11/2019 13:09, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 11/8/19 2:48 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > From: Andrew Rybchenko > >> It does 3 things for all port at the end of rte_eth_dev_configure() based on > >> dev->data->dev_conf (if PMD updates it in the case of violations). > >> > >> 1. If requested offload is not enabled, log error message. > >> > >> 2. If requested offload is not enabled, fail dev_configure by > >> returning error and deconfiguring all queues. > >> > >> 3. If not requested offload is enabled, log info message. > >> > >> Above is done for Rx and Tx offloads. > > > > Agree with your summary. > > > > My problem in this patch is part 3: > > This part implies by a formal way(ethdev) that there are 2 configurations: > > 1. The application configuration. > > 2. The actual device configuration. > > > > I think that formally if there is a difference between both, an error must be returned. > > Informally, PMD can do whatever it want with good documentation in its doc file. > > OK I see. The problem that you'd like make (3) stronger > check to log and return error. > > Above discussion cover it. We can discuss it later, but > right now it cannot be done (at least from my point of > view) as I said above. Yes, making checks stronger can always be done later. It looks a step is done in this patch. In general, the gap between app needs and PMD support needs to be better handled in ethdev. Matan, I suggest you submit a patch for next release, so it will be a base for continuing this discussion.