From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2A6A04DB; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9235D1E8DA; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shelob.oktetlabs.ru (shelob.oktetlabs.ru [91.220.146.113]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869581E8D7 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:07:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (aros.oktetlabs.ru [192.168.38.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by shelob.oktetlabs.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B7277F572; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:07:28 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 shelob.oktetlabs.ru 0B7277F572 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=oktetlabs.ru; s=default; t=1602767248; bh=OfeHgLjU1KNraj2LkDt1nGTHF3KzM5Ld22jyw+zaOeE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=JYj4vl68yTCyDnTI2rgvHDt3MGKuw6BZzfKHBOXsqMz4cX9GU/93oPuzZ5oN9/dbR 5ZDKmIxdSmOTRaXff92JumWK+LdEsANt/ei5uQSAzONK2wkwaG54zF+/0x0KlM8QNw hBfuanG2jO6epW1Kg/HUsEyZ688w8fDyMcCAC2UQ= To: Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Jerin Jacob , Slava Ovsiienko , Andrew Rybchenko Cc: dpdk-dev , Stephen Hemminger , Olivier Matz , Maxime Coquelin , David Marchand References: <87d51011-14df-41cb-2601-ca2fd00de4e0@intel.com> <3799210.WVtpHuTWyK@thomas> From: Andrew Rybchenko Organization: OKTET Labs Message-ID: <99dad29b-336b-a40c-d96e-97d4d1cb858c@oktetlabs.ru> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:07:27 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3799210.WVtpHuTWyK@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/15/20 3:49 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 15/10/2020 13:49, Slava Ovsiienko: >> From: Ferruh Yigit >>> On 10/15/2020 12:26 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>>>>>> If we see some of the features of such kind or other PMDs adopts >>>>>>>> the split feature - we'll try to find the common root and consider >>>>>>>> the way how >>>>>> to report it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My only concern with that approach will be ABI break again if >>>>>>> something needs to exposed over rte_eth_dev_info(). >>>>> >>>>> Let's reserve the pointer to struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations in the >>>>> rte_eth_dev_info to avoid ABI break? >>>> >>>> Works for me. If we add an additional reserved field. >>>> >>>> Due to RC1 time constraint, I am OK to leave it as a reserved filed >>>> and fill meat when it is required if other ethdev maintainers are OK. >>>> I will be required for feature complete. >>>> >>> >>> Sounds good to me. > > OK for me. OK as well, but I dislike the idea with pointer in dev_info. It sounds like it breaks existing practice. We should either reserve enough space or simply add dedicated API call to report Rx seg capabilities. > >> OK, let's introduce the pointer in the rte_eth_dev_info and >> define struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations as experimental. >> Will it be allowed to update this one later (after 20.11)? >> Is ABI break is allowed for the case? > > If it is experimental, you can change it at anytime. > > Ideally, we could try to have a first version of the limitations > during 20.11-rc2. Yes, please.