From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9983E34F0 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:23:26 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Mar 2018 10:23:25 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,336,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="213064908" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.63]) ([10.237.221.63]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2018 10:23:24 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Neil Horman , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dev@dpdk.org References: <20180320112631.107105-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <1863259.sHUX8Jkyl1@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <7c15e970-5fcd-bd21-afbf-1218d88e0ca6@intel.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:23:23 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1863259.sHUX8Jkyl1@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ethdev CRC strip flag deprecation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:23:28 -0000 On 3/20/2018 11:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 20/03/2018 12:26, Ferruh Yigit: >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> +* ethdev: Make CRC stript default behavior without any flag required and add a > > s/stript/stripping/ > >> + new offload flag to let application request for keeping CRC if PMD reports >> + capability for it. >> + ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP`` flag will be removed. >> + ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_KEETP_CRC`` will be added. > > s/KEETP/KEEP/ > > I think we should introduce the new flag without removing the old one > for one release. > Setting both flags would be an error. > Setting no flag would mean stripping. > So the CRC_STRIP flag would be just ignored by PMDs. > > Opinions? Introducing KEEP_CRC in this release is OK, since no PMD announces this capability, it should be safe. Since many PMD's offloading patches are not applied yet, deciding on "Setting no flag would mean stripping" helps to get this correct at first place for them. Only this is ABI break, but I am not aware of any PMD that implements not stripping CRC case so I hope this is acceptable. If there is no objection, I will update notice to only remove flag in next release.