From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2E35598 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:24:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id l132so74141591wmf.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT) 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=VUn6pNcwOC0hX7wbOjs6bD+/MTRYAL3aXbEXQCMTzP8=; b=WRUQI/8T/LKKBcFUDv27vFAlirH+oaRaw7BfTUEqLIcjtsQlx9NVG7RIux+FSFqw60 fbtAfU1kBW+39foeuG0zG4cgWS/DI+fblyL0q1VRbOTDr7gvGwHu0my+d+2RmS8mBK55 Bhyhs34F4RsS1vUHe1FrN4m6mfpg6HvOo6oG/YH15fvax7tR3TwRY1yVPB+/55ShOQDF 5NwchiYcE2uYcXNhGsB2irJJaOoGcIJXyqyVYq2NB1DwOhxBa87wkkZ1fgN+NQsHR+4q PpTnVjxRUbsUo5wky4cKdBUabPtP1HbWeVhAY6pELXuH4UwGL0fZ5QZxETmIcxIJ+9uB g/8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VUn6pNcwOC0hX7wbOjs6bD+/MTRYAL3aXbEXQCMTzP8=; b=Kw+yAv79QSngc4WqoSbIpdmc+SF/yogAJ2x2g7IozE8xJ/XvTpGhQ3USIYLtUxJuSP tLTQYQNDY5mYnFctuB3bAxfzgcjT7cAVbuk95SUzqBAjwyEXOmLOPr4JXtWB7SQhxx4u /TT80t3qRkJi73hZSko3T2+psTWoguTfdKU618sJyH3BjpkAZaro5Ry+bnBxxj1icfBE JKSTjtfl4jCyN1Pmux2we7tPT/TUKXGs+jmlqTbxE7ML8zBY3ZhGHCT/8EH8vEMVSEG0 +c2MbxCKpGeTjHMTuFninF9rBSz+6iBjGw9tGg0hwC4rEsCQEP4T+3wfZ5HtjNmapUlu HrEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rmb426nmvAgXDEfD+y2oT6Ra1FQumIeC5EKmU1ERIuGMMr8ht7jwGPh3kFkGwex1OPQ X-Received: by 10.194.124.168 with SMTP id mj8mr8235748wjb.50.1475072647856; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9sm8597091wjf.47.2016.09.28.07.24.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Cc: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, "Shah, Rahul R" <rahul.r.shah@intel.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, azelezniak <alexz@att.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:24:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20512183.qqjUaSiKnu@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC11F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1471528125-26357-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <1918603.2PG7Ygo6cR@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC11F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:24:08 -0000 2016-09-28 13:26, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 2016-09-28 11:23, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > If we this way (force user to include driver specific headers and > > > call driver specific functions), how you guys plan to make this functionality available for multiple driver types. > > > > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features. > > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs. > > > > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would need similar functionality for i40e. > > > Does it mean that they'll have to re-implement this part of their code again? > > > Or would have to create (and maintain) their own shim layer that would provide some s of abstraction? > > > Basically their own version of rte_ethdev? > > > > No definitive answer. > > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which is implemented only in 1 or 2 drivers? If the application tries to use > > it, we can imagine that a specific range of hardware is expected. > > Yes, as I understand, it is a specific subset of supported HW (just Inel NICs for now, but different models/drivers). > Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all HW from this subset without rebuilding/implementing the app. > > > > > I think it is an important question. > > Previously we had the issue of having some API which are too specific and need a rework to be used with other NICs. In order to avoid > > such rework and API break, we can try to make them available in a driver-specific or vendor-specific staging area, waiting for a later > > generalization. > > Could you remind me why you guys were that opposed to ioctl style approach? > It is not my favorite thing either, but it seems pretty generic way to handle such situations. We prefer having well-defined functions instead of opaque ioctl-style encoding. And it was not clear what is the benefit of ioctl. Now I think I understand you would like to have a common ioctl service for features available on 2 drivers. Right? Example (trying to read your mind): rte_ethdev_ioctl(port_id, <TLV encoding VF_PING service and VF id>); instead of rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); Please confirm I understand what you are thinking about.