From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748752A58 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:39:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2016 09:39:47 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,553,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="894750933" Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.3]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2016 09:39:46 -0700 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.226]) by IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:39:45 +0100 From: "Kulasek, TomaszX" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation Thread-Index: AQHSL4ilTMaREL57lkyRUH2a0LRol6C8ViAAgAAOXQCAAAKVgIAABkCAgAATbwA= Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:39:44 +0000 Message-ID: <3042915272161B4EB253DA4D77EB373A14F45162@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1477327917-18564-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <1499338.8Le0ABsxDG@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CD83D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2078955.d1Aiqtukxu@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CE8E3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CE8E3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:39:49 -0000 Hi > -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 18:24 > To: Thomas Monjalon > Cc: Kulasek, TomaszX ; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:02 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: Kulasek, TomaszX ; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > > > 2016-10-27 15:52, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > > > > > This is a major new function in the API and I still have some > comments. > > > > > > > > 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 act 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 and > > verification. > > " > > So how does it behave with other drivers? >=20 > 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 without) > code paths for testpmd. > Probably a new fwd mode or just extra parameter for the existing one? > Any other suggestions? >=20 I had sent txprep engine in v2 (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15775/)= , but I'm opened on the suggestions. If you like it I can resent it in plac= e of csumonly modification. Tomasz > > > > > > > struct rte_eth_dev { > > > > > eth_rx_burst_t rx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD receive > function. */ > > > > > eth_tx_burst_t tx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit > > > > > function. */ > > > > > + eth_tx_prep_t tx_pkt_prep; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit > > > > > +prepare function. */ > > > > > struct rte_eth_dev_data *data; /**< Pointer to device data */ > > > > > const struct eth_driver *driver;/**< Driver for this device */ > > > > > const struct eth_dev_ops *dev_ops; /**< Functions exported by > > > > > PMD */ > > > > > > > > Could you confirm why tx_pkt_prep is not in dev_ops? > > > > I guess we want to have several implementations? > > > > > > Yes, it depends on configuration options, same as tx_pkt_burst. > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we have a const struct control_dev_ops and a struct > datapath_dev_ops? > > > > > > That's probably a good idea, but I suppose it is out of scope for tha= t > patch. > > > > No it's not out of scope. > > It answers to the question "why is it added in this structure and not > dev_ops". > > We won't do this change when nothing else is changed in the struct. >=20 > Not sure I understood you here: > Are you saying datapath_dev_ops/controlpath_dev_ops have to be introduced > as part of that patch? > But that's a lot of changes all over rte_ethdev.[h,c]. > It definitely worse a separate patch (might be some discussion) for me. > Konstantin >=20 >=20