Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split

[Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>]

Hi, Ferruh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:34
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: thomasm@monjalon.net; stephen@networkplumber.org;
> olivier.matz@6wind.com; jerinjacobk@gmail.com;
> maxime.coquelin@redhat.com; david.marchand@redhat.com;
> arybchenko@solarflare.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split
> 
[..snip..]
> 
> Can you please update deprecation notice too, to remove the notice?
> 
Yes, I missed the point, thank you for noticing.

> >   5 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> > b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst index dd8c955..a45a9e8 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> > +* **[implements] rte_eth_dev_data**: ``buffer_split``.
> 
> What is implemented here?
> 
none, removed.

> > +* **[provides]   rte_eth_dev_info**:
> ``rx_offload_capa:RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT``.
> > +* **[provides]   eth_dev_ops**: ``rxq_info_get:buffer_split``.
> 
> Is this correct?
Yes, the dedicated rx_burst routine supporting buffer split might
be engaged by PMD and might be reported via rxq_info_get().

> > +		rx_seg = &seg_single;
> > +		n_seg = 1;
> 
> Why setting 'rx_seg' & 'n_seg'? Why not leaving them NULL and 0 when not
> used?
> This was PMD can do NULL/0 check and can know they are not used.
Refactored, single pool (legacy) and new extended config check are
separated into dedicated branches.
 

> > -	rte_ethdev_trace_rxq_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id, nb_rx_desc, mp,
> > -		rx_conf, ret);
> 
> Is this removed intentionally?
> 
Missed statement, reverted back.

[..snip..]
Comments and descriptions rearranged and updated according to the comments, v6 is coming.

With best regards, Slava