Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: add new field to rxq info struct

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

For info, today is the last day to get trusted acks on deprecations.

07/08/2020 05:51, Chengchang Tang:
> On 2020/8/6 23:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 8/6/2020 5:00 AM, Chengchang Tang wrote:
> >> Struct rte_eth_rxq_info will be modified to include a new field, indicating
> >> the size of each buffer that could be used for hw to receive packets. Add
> >> this field to rte_eth_rxq_info to expose relevant information to upper
> >> layer users/application.
> >>
> >> For more details:
> >> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-July/176135.html
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com>
> >> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> >> ---
> >>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 9 +++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> index ea4cfa7..f08b5f9 100644
> >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> @@ -110,6 +110,15 @@ Deprecation Notices
> >>    break the ABI checks, that is why change is planned for 20.11.
> >>    The list of internal APIs are mainly ones listed in ``rte_ethdev_driver.h``.
> >>  
> >> +* ethdev: A new field will be added to the public data structure
> >> +  ``rte_eth_rxq_info`` to indicate the buffer size used in receiving packets
> >> +  for HW. When receive packets, HW DMA won't exceed this size.
> > 
> > Overall +1 to provide this information.
> > 
> > This field is only to report back the PMD configured Rx buffer size, it won't
> > affect the configuration step, do you think should we highlight this?
> I think it is not necessary because this structure is designed to report PMD
> configuration. And it is only used in rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get.
> > 
> > Also will this field be optional or mandatory, this matters for the scope of the
> > work for 20.11. I think the intention is to provide an optional field, what do
> > you think to documenting that it is optional?
> Yes, it is optional. I will highlight this in v3.
> > 
> >> And it will
> >> +  affect the number of fragments in receiving packets when scatter is enabled.
> > 
> > Is this detail required in the deprecation notice? I see it is relevant but
> > the configured Rx buffer size affects the number of the fragments, but reporting
> > this value does not.
> > Do you want to mention above as motivation to have the field? If so I don't
> > expect application to calculate the number of the fragments using this value.
> > I am for dropping above sentences if I am not missing anything.
> Thank you for this advice. I am not sure what information should be reflected in
> a deprecation notice. I seem to have added some redundant and inappropriate stuff.
> I will drop these sentences in v3.
> > 
> >> +  So, add this field to ``rte_eth_rxq_info`` to expose relevant information to
> >> +  upper layer user/application.
> > 
> > And not sure above sentences says anything new, looks like duplication to me.
> > 
> >> +  This change is planned for 20.11. For more details:
> >> +  https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-July/176135.html
> >> +
> >>  * traffic manager: All traffic manager API's in ``rte_tm.h`` were mistakenly made
> >>    ABI stable in the v19.11 release. The TM maintainer and other contributors have
> >>    agreed to keep the TM APIs as experimental in expectation of additional spec
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > 
> 
>