From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37062AACE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  2 Apr 2018 18:51:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF6D20E8C;
 Mon,  2 Apr 2018 12:51:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:51:39 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=ux4EEqcgoxHC8GF24/cPIib39W
 w1hxe4wu5KXQ6KxBg=; b=cEDogI+ZsYq7fS2wruk5DizgTlMMS8L9VESJTIcQX4
 xCza+DcftdvYVtNTCLqDotmpOxg06kPiuCjqJDorV7PJV6Ryt+kiGLd+LIGLYsbW
 Lj51dIdQoZc5gXchcAkMjEtCWr4OVIRF3SEom5DftyKFedj1UVTgvEbfiuMQIzgr
 A=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ux4EEq
 cgoxHC8GF24/cPIib39Ww1hxe4wu5KXQ6KxBg=; b=FKjnlV0fJAU0DtVvJM3yHZ
 BhjkYom8kPQIsCJpRb1WU9qtm02SN8A26pnqw3kVH6KoIs2LinK2BF+24aZD/ua+
 YBB5u9AGYAw2CVmfRmfw2U1PpF7Jy2F8eQa5SvWPAFdCCSWew6luI0zOL0/7fzq0
 31QVW/6KZPzIV7EjuR3W2Ty/dAWWITiBqSiCPflNjfqggjV1+jeDoypP95YdjPhR
 2rXIaG6YhaiK9SyOt5p/lEH/4WJ4d80awwRM6hdnxnXtChD9iQ9Us7i7xYWCnybi
 NWUeBgm3EG9f/VI8hxXU8siVrFDJ2BV0N7jiXACnO2LISDeqIN2F2HoNY62TEqWw
 ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:m1_CWjw5NgoB7hOA1Henz05blR-MzKBncpqyazDb1yyXLO4jG6vc-w>
Received: from xps.localnet (182.19.136.77.rev.sfr.net [77.136.19.182])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2C324E4437;
 Mon,  2 Apr 2018 12:51:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Shijith Thotton <shijith.thotton@cavium.com>,
 Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
 John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>,
 Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, Tomasz Duszynski <tdu@semihalf.com>,
 Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@arm.com>,
 Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>,
 Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
 Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
 Harish Patil <harish.patil@cavium.com>,
 Rasesh Mody <rasesh.mody@cavium.com>,
 Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 Shrikrishna Khare <skhare@vmware.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
 Allain Legacy <allain.legacy@windriver.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
 Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 17:53:44 +0200
Message-ID: <3164302.jtqUZe9MAY@xps>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR05MB4426EAEB061126D7A4C1F24FC3A70@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps>
 <DB7PR05MB4426EAEB061126D7A4C1F24FC3A70@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Survey for final decision about per-port offload API
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 16:51:40 -0000

01/04/2018 06:44, Shahaf Shuler:
> > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities:
> > 	rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa
> > 	rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa
> > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, i.e. every queue
> > capabilities must be reported as port capabilities.
> > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level only if it can be
> > applied to a specific queue.
> > 
> > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)?
> 
> No. 
> 
> The documentation should describe the API from the application side, and not provide guidelines for the PMDs implementation. 
> If missing, we should clarify more about what queue and port offload means. Something like:
> "When port offload is enabled, the offload applies on the port along with all of its associated queues"  and
> "When queue offload is enabled the offload, the offload applies only on the specific queue."
> 
> The PMDs then will decide how they report the different offloads they offer. 

I don't understand why you want to be free in capabilities implementation.
If the capabilities are not strictly standardized, how can they be used
by the application?

Rewording from application point of view:

All the offload capabilities (port-level and queue-level) are reported in rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa.
The offloads reported in rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa can be applied to a specific queue.

Is it OK?