From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FFE1B7F4 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:17:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 66so4938902wmd.3 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:17:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EpBEqQvpsfMsdV2mx3cPGMo/3n78NMrVNdD78g4CJOY=; b=NlEUKfKcJXUXLUERTBIdA4Qor/S+HwI95bqaE1i6x5GyboMwP+eZH5D2/EqFoTyd1p SKrn5nTe2U3V7uKh5rycuJ5gJld3NcWpRp9SHupY3MmH94tJUlSvYJhT6ak2Efbj4uAf u0r6C5UrvM6VtqSMTTAZy1Ok/UcdLkcPeztgnlBUD3u25ZdKbJHDEltn+UYAQTNSFqQf UXFX/5XWR20i4OqJ7hqVI9RPJX22Hq5UKSAqi+4RkfTMj2x1z9e/JUhIPq1PzX4mt4hP AoX2KP0LqXyTcm8gzw+N8mDwCd44pi+y3eNH6y4cn3Zz3gC+8cdZyTLO4aNq26eNcjkX unwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EpBEqQvpsfMsdV2mx3cPGMo/3n78NMrVNdD78g4CJOY=; b=ORoDbsJ6iOT9naURCRAIukH8FVCMB7tqGcacvF9xJO4orjt6Hng/T+hFPerGlsTKWV Otn7/Wi9vIKLdKhampbzNbr4x3QZu72NcLtBsABP29hA0212xcWCpB5DlWqaVf/s3TYH euhS+ZdErWTnX2gXMT0AI8TjLvRT4uivqkocX7niGzn2yluwCCWiX8zjQTjEBS9g2XLP v18RFgVvEm2CFf2o77LahPkzxHrUHlufwlmTbm5QiiuKmQSoxuTGcojluRC8MIT4fn8H lquMT1BPthCl7j6LTNHOeAKEfgvrraN/dA5DOd9wOsiH/qlXQpJyjTzf+CAqJOTRtEnh 7AOg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBlS9Q/97ndIdD7/pvnLSCgdhsJgsrn8PIjH1AABITVbF2uZhNW yMu7JCr4bZFa0MHFXLLDhXfv6lBrT60bgrLDM7OvHA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/dTx5Cm3maf75e43Xxy1UGIgpaV7ZkCKcZCsEMCPCRPs9m1luaaiW28XgcqRB4Pty2UuKavP7CKq4id7xhkFA= X-Received: by 10.80.167.129 with SMTP id i1mr10126898edc.32.1523459854688; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:17:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.203.69 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:17:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> From: Alejandro Lucero Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:17:34 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev , Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , Wenzhuo Lu , Konstantin Ananyev , Beilei Xing , Qi Zhang , Jingjing Wu , Adrien Mazarguil , Nelio Laranjeiro , Yongseok Koh , Shahaf Shuler , Tomasz Duszynski , Jianbo Liu , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , Harish Patil , Rasesh Mody , Andrew Rybchenko , Shrikrishna Khare , Maxime Coquelin , Allain Legacy , Bruce Richardson , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Survey for final decision about per-port offload API 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: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:17:35 -0000 Hi On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." > > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags > in rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, > when calling respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for each queue. > > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not > repeated in queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/094023.html > > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port > offloads in queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html > > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads > > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? > > Yes > > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation > and remove the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs > switched to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, > the sonner it is fixed, the better. > > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? > > Yes > > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at > port level, cannot be disabled at queue level. > > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? > > Yes > > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, > i.e. every queue capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level > only if it can be applied to a specific queue. > > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? > > Yes > > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) > Thank you > > > Thanks