Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v13] ethdev: new Rx/Tx offloads API

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

14/05/2018 14:00, Wei Dai:
> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst
> @@ -303,12 +303,12 @@ In the DPDK offload API, offloads are divided into per-port and per-queue offloa
>  * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled on a queue and disabled on another queue at the same time.
>  * A pure per-port offloading must be enabled or disabled on all queues at the same time.
>  * Any offloading is per-queue or pure per-port type, but can't be both types at same devices.
> -* A per-port offloading can be enabled or disabled on all queues at the same time.
> -* It is certain that both per-queue and pure per-port offloading are per-port type.
> +* Port capabilities = pre-queue capabilities + pure per-port capabilities.

s/pre/per/

> +* Any supported offloading can be enabled on all queues.
>  
>  The different offloads capabilities can be queried using ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()``.
>  The ``dev_info->[rt]x_queue_offload_capa`` returned from ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()`` includes all per-queue offloading capabilities.
> -The ``dev_info->[rt]x_offload_capa`` returned from ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()`` includes all per-port and per-queue offloading capabilities.
> +The ``dev_info->[rt]x_offload_capa`` returned from ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()`` includes all pure per-port and per-queue offloading capabilities.

OK


> @@ -1556,29 +1558,29 @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id,
>  	 * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries
>  	 * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and
>  	 * not enabled on all queues.
> -	 * The underlying PMD must be aware of this point.
>  	 */

OK


> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> @@ -1067,13 +1067,18 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_info {
>  	uint16_t max_vfs; /**< Maximum number of VFs. */
>  	uint16_t max_vmdq_pools; /**< Maximum number of VMDq pools. */
>  	uint64_t rx_offload_capa;
> -	/**< All RX offload capabilities including all per queue ones */
> +	/**<
> +	 * All RX offload capabilities including all per-queue ones.
> +	 * Any flag in [rt]x_offload_capa and [rt]x_queue_offload_capa
> +	 * of this structure needn't be repeated in rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup().

It is confusing. Better to remove this sentence about queue_setup
in port capa comment.

> +	 * A flag enabled at port level can't be disabled at queue level.

This one too: it is a comment about port capa, not queue setup.


> @@ -1554,9 +1559,7 @@ const char * __rte_experimental rte_eth_dev_tx_offload_name(uint64_t offload);
>   *        the [rt]x_offload_capa returned from rte_eth_dev_infos_get().
>   *        Any type of device supported offloading set in the input argument
>   *        eth_conf->[rt]xmode.offloads to rte_eth_dev_configure() is enabled
> - *        on all [RT]x queues and it can't be disabled no matter whether
> - *        it is cleared or set in the input argument [rt]x_conf->offloads
> - *        to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup().
> + *        on all queues and it can't be disabled in rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup().

OK


Missing: we must explain the "no repeat need" and
"no disable port offload on queue" constraint.
In the last review, I was suggesting such sentences:
        No need to repeat flags already enabled at port level.
        A flag enabled at port level, cannot be disabled at queue level.
I think it should go in queue setup comments.

Opinion?