From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053A32934 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:28:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2016 03:28:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,557,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="184918693" Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2016 03:28:50 -0700 Received: from irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.3) by IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:28:48 +0100 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.177]) by irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.176]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:28:48 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Kulasek, TomaszX" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation Thread-Index: AQHSL4iZ5WiAYkWG4EqB+e9ej9GU7qC8ViAAgAAd2uD///MYgIAAEtTQ///3tgCAASswgP///beAAAIyV4A= Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:28:47 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CEB79@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1477327917-18564-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <3042915272161B4EB253DA4D77EB373A14F45162@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CEAEE@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <18243372.Y4s77Td6b4@xps13> In-Reply-To: <18243372.Y4s77Td6b4@xps13> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:28:51 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 11:22 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Kulasek, TomaszX = > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation >=20 > 2016-10-28 10:15, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > > 2016-10-27 15:52, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > 2016-10-26 14:56, Tomasz Kulasek: > > > > > > > > --- a/config/common_base > > > > > > > > +++ b/config/common_base > > > > > > > > +CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP=3Dy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot enable it until it is implemented in every drivers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why? > > > > > > If tx_pkt_prep =3D=3D NULL, then rte_eth_tx_prep() would just a= ct as noop. > > > > > > Right now it is not mandatory for the PMD to implement it. > > > > > > > > > > If it is not implemented, the application must do the preparation= by > > > > itself. > > > > > From patch 6: > > > > > " > > > > > Removed pseudo header calculation for udp/tcp/tso packets from > > > > > application and used Tx preparation API for packet preparation an= d > > > > > verification. > > > > > " > > > > > So how does it behave with other drivers? > > > > > > > > Hmm so it seems that we broke testpmd csumonly mode for non-intel > > > > drivers.. > > > > My bad, missed that part completely. > > > > Yes, then I suppose for now we'll need to support both (with and wi= thout) > > > > code paths for testpmd. > > > > Probably a new fwd mode or just extra parameter for the existing on= e? > > > > Any other suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > I had sent txprep engine in v2 (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/1= 5775/), but I'm opened on the suggestions. If you like it I can > resent > > > it in place of csumonly modification. > > > > I still not sure it is worth to have another version of csum... > > Can we introduce a new global variable in testpmd and a new command: > > testpmd> csum tx_prep > > or so? > > Looking at current testpmd patch, I suppose the changes will be minimal= . > > What do you think? >=20 > No please no! > The problem is not in testpmd. > The problem is in every applications. > Should we prepare the checksums or let tx_prep do it? Not sure, I understood you... Right now we don't' change other apps. They would work as before. If people would like to start to use tx_prep in their apps - they are free to do that. If they like to keep doing that manually - that's fine too. >>From other side we need an ability to test (and demonstrate) that new funct= ionality. So we do need changes in testpmd. Konstantin > The result will depend of the driver used.