From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CB537B4 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:48:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2016 07:48:33 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,410,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="14129829" Received: from irsmsx153.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.75]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2016 07:48:32 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.164]) by IRSMSX153.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.140]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:48:31 +0100 From: "Iremonger, Bernard" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon CC: "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Jerin Jacob , "Shah, Rahul R" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , azelezniak Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management Thread-Index: AQHR/3nL92Tihh00JUigC2GSiYccqaBxO5UAgATmckCAAQ+CAIADl+fwgAsNpYCAARC+AIAABFiAgAAE4YCAADhQAIAASFBQ///7roCABKb7YIAACqAAgAEZ1rCAADX6gIAAIevAgAFVHoCAABvXAIAABmeAgAAQLQCAAAHFAIAAFQZA Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:48:31 +0000 Message-ID: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08DD15@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1471528125-26357-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <1918603.2PG7Ygo6cR@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC11F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20512183.qqjUaSiKnu@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC180@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC180@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiN2U4ZTNjZjctZDQ2MS00Yzg5LThjMzctNWFhNzZjZTdkNjBmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjYydkduNkpZb2hhdDV5dmdqdVpCNytaamZQQnppNFd2Vnp2WnVVV2ZnQ3c9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management 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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:48:35 -0000 > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for > > VF management > > > > 2016-09-28 13:26, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > 2016-09-28 11:23, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > If we this way (force user to include driver specific headers > > > > > and call driver specific functions), how you guys plan to make th= is > functionality available for multiple driver types. > > > > > > > > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features. > > > > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs. > > > > > > > > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would > need similar functionality for i40e. > > > > > Does it mean that they'll have to re-implement this part of their= code > again? > > > > > Or would have to create (and maintain) their own shim layer that > would provide some s of abstraction? > > > > > Basically their own version of rte_ethdev? > > > > > > > > No definitive answer. > > > > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which > > > > is implemented only in 1 or 2 drivers? If the application tries to = use it, > we can imagine that a specific range of hardware is expected. > > > > > > Yes, as I understand, it is a specific subset of supported HW (just I= nel NICs > for now, but different models/drivers). > > > Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all= HW > from this subset without rebuilding/implementing the app. > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is an important question. > > > > Previously we had the issue of having some API which are too > > > > specific and need a rework to be used with other NICs. In order to > > > > avoid such rework and API break, we can try to make them available > > > > in a driver-specific or vendor-specific staging area, waiting for > > a later generalization. > > > > > > Could you remind me why you guys were that opposed to ioctl style > approach? > > > It is not my favorite thing either, but it seems pretty generic way t= o > handle such situations. > > > > We prefer having well-defined functions instead of opaque ioctl-style > encoding. > > And it was not clear what is the benefit of ioctl. > > Now I think I understand you would like to have a common ioctl service = for > features available on 2 drivers. Right? >=20 > Yes. >=20 > > Example (trying to read your mind): > > rte_ethdev_ioctl(port_id, id>); instead of > > rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); > > rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); Please confirm I understand > > what you are thinking about. >=20 > Yep, you read my mind correctly :) > Konstantin >=20 Adding the pmd_ops field to struct eth_devops {} discussed previously in th= is email thread will allow driver specific functions for multiple drivers a= nd will get rid of the driver specific header file rte_pmd_driver.h. Would this be an acceptable solution? Regards, Bernard.