Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix applications failure on configure

[Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>]

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 1:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon:
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix applications failure on configure
> 
> 02/05/2018 11:58, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > > Or as Xueming suggested, we can take rss_hf config as best effort and
> not return error at all.
> > >
> > > I think this forces PMDs to have up-to-date flow_type_rss_offloads
> values, is there any other benefit?
> > > What was the initial motivation to add error return on this check?
> >
> > The original idea is to add rss_hf check on mlx5 PMD, while it looks
> > more generic to move the check to ethdev api from discussion[1].
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
> w.
> > dpdk.org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2018-
> April%2F095136.html&data=02%7C01
> >
> %7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cc773c15dcbda49d21da008d5b0145864%7C
> a652971
> >
> c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636608523825745897&sdata=jDU
> OyU0E%
> > 2FY5g3oSKBQxUsz8Ehr%2FN3ek5h8kotQBLZBU%3D&reserved=0
> 
> I think it is not correct to not return an error when the app request an offload
> which is not supported.
> 
> Do we agree to work on PMDs and applications to fix this offload
> compliance?
> And submit a deprecation notice to return an error in a later release?

I probably missed it but why deprecation notice is required? 
Per my understanding it is just a fix to enforce better the API which is:
1. application reads capabilities 
2. application sets offloads accordingly. 


>