From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK and HW offloads
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:52:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160321145249.GA16732@bricha3-MOBL3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29795767.yLuRT7a5hO@xps13>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:18:57PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-20 14:17, Zhang, Helin:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > 2016-03-18 10:16, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > > Right now, all those offload features are pretty much unusable in a
> > > > real product without lots and lots of extra codes and huge bug
> > > > surface. It bothers me enough that I would recommend removing much of the
> > > filter/offload/ptype stuff from DPDK!
> > >
> > > One of the biggest challenge is to think about a good filtering API.
> > > The offloading has some interaction with the mbuf struct.
> > >
> > > I would like to suggest rewriting ethdev API by keeping it as is for some time for
> > > compatibility while creating a new one. What about the prefix dpdk_netdev_ to
> > > progressively replace rte_eth_dev?
> >
> > I totally agree with to add new and generic APIs for user applications. But I don't
> > think we need to remove all current APIs. Generic APIs may not support all advanced
> > hardware features, while specific APIs can. Why not support all? One generic APIs for
> > common users, and others APIs for advanced users.
>
> Yes we cannot access to every features of a device through generic API.
> Until now we were trying to add an ethdev API for every features even if it
> is used by only one driver.
> I think we should allow a direct access to the driver by the applications and
> work on generic API only for common features.
Definite +1.
I think that we need to start pushing driver-specific functionality to get exposed
via a driver's header files. That allow users who want to extract the max
functionality from a particular NIC to do so via those APIs calls, while not
polluting the generic ethdev layer.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of dpdk_netdev. I think we can work
within the existing rte_eth_dev framework.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-21 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-18 17:16 Stephen Hemminger
2016-03-18 18:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-20 14:17 ` Zhang, Helin
2016-03-20 19:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-21 14:52 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2016-03-21 15:26 ` Kyle Larose
2016-03-22 5:50 ` Qiu, Michael
2016-03-22 10:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-22 12:19 ` Jay Rolette
2016-03-22 17:17 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-03-22 17:41 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-03-23 2:47 ` Qiu, Michael
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160321145249.GA16732@bricha3-MOBL3 \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).