From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Liu, Yong" <yong.liu@intel.com>
Cc: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] examples/ip_reassembly: add parse-ptype option
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:35:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2819058.cfIqcf5N9Z@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E62D5E2F6@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2017-02-10 07:53, Liu, Yong:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > 2017-02-09 22:25, Marvin Liu:
> > > Add new option parse-ptype in this sample in case of pmd driver
> > > not provide packet type info. If this option enabled, packet type
> > > will be analyzed in Rx callback function.
> > [...]
> > > + if (parse_ptype) {
> > > + if (add_cb_parse_ptype(portid, queueid) < 0)
> > > + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > + "Fail to add ptype cb\n");
> > > + } else if (!check_ptype(portid))
> > > + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > + "PMD can not provide needed ptypes\n");
> >
> > Instead of adding a new option, why not adding the callback automatically
> > if the packet type is not supported by the hardware?
>
> Thomas,
> We want to let user choice which kind of method for packet type parsing.
> If start application with parse-type option, is meaning user want to use software parsing otherwise will use hardware parsing.
I do not understand why this user choice matters.
If it is available, hardware ptype is better, isn't it?
It it is not available, we need to be aware of this specific issue,
otherwise we have the error "PMD can not provide needed ptypes"
(without suggesting to use the option).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-10 8:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-23 7:28 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] examples: fix ip_reassembly not work with some NICs Yong Liu
2017-02-09 14:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] examples/ip_reassembly: add parse-ptype option Marvin Liu
2017-02-09 14:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] examples/ip_fragmentation: " Marvin Liu
2017-02-09 14:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] examples/l3fwd-acl: " Marvin Liu
2017-02-09 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] examples/ip_reassembly: " Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-10 7:53 ` Liu, Yong
2017-02-10 8:35 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2017-02-10 9:00 ` Tan, Jianfeng
2017-02-10 9:02 ` Liu, Yong
2017-04-04 12:45 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-08-27 13:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] examples: fix ip_reassembly not work with some NICs Luca Boccassi
2018-08-27 13:57 ` Liu, Yong
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=2819058.cfIqcf5N9Z@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jianfeng.tan@intel.com \
--cc=yong.liu@intel.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).