From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE4F152A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 03:09:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2017 18:09:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,341,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="211505564" Received: from debian.sh.intel.com (HELO debian) ([10.239.67.170]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2017 18:09:21 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:08:23 +0800 From: Tiwei Bie To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Adrien Mazarguil , dev@dpdk.org, "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Mcnamara, John" , olivier.matz@6wind.com, "Zhang, Helin" , "Dai, Wei" , "Wang, Xiao W" Message-ID: <20170110020823.GE9500@debian> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0FEE0C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10241C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170109035736.GA11691@debian> <1542539.LCBRG7nZDl@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1542539.LCBRG7nZDl@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:09:25 -0000 On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:26:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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. > I see. Thank you very much for your comments! :-) Best regards, Tiwei Bie