From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3C8A00C2; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:32:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D85440140; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:32:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2784013F for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:32:04 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1644492724; x=1676028724; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=rPLATVleq/8BSD0B6jxyy3deeNKosyRSFtZxRYXcdvs=; b=GGX1la3xYZC717g+2bdWp+YMJztGOorlFyv5+xsFj5e8fuvWCj21fJLg nFzPkqdRISo6b7mfo9RTsoD3DsJUA+Uw4BEcID8k0tuRfbrHTtL54jto2 plIUwTbaVm7Ftf1GToces/UU1e+/7yOeJ8UHS88Y8tz5C04xzDc5s52k7 hyl4EXnKpxISg0Tza+eNZ2q2Dn3H7WZkvAc/Lpk+8HNYoZ4qHeG6u0Xb5 Mnmoe+RhensM7A71v4gJI87T7qqXLEdygSynJvNVNfq4ExdFdyP4MDLcp oMkrpJmXQQQmBUNOK/in5YCgSNJf7/YAGM5z5l1r9R7QobkFUwGcOtzyL Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10253"; a="249419099" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,358,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="249419099" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Feb 2022 03:32:03 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,358,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="485651670" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.11.92]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Feb 2022 03:32:01 -0800 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:31:57 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Ankur Dwivedi Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram , Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda , Sunil Kumar Kori , Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Anoob Joseph , Tejasree Kondoj , ferruh.yigit@intel.com Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 0/2] add telemetry for inline IPsec Message-ID: References: <20220210065334.19942-1-adwivedi@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 10:04:22AM +0000, Ankur Dwivedi wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Please see my comment inline. > > Regards, > Ankur > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bruce Richardson > >Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:42 PM > >To: Ankur Dwivedi > >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram ; > >Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda ; Sunil Kumar Kori > >; Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi > >; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > >; Anoob Joseph ; Tejasree > >Kondoj > >Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 0/2] add telemetry for inline IPsec > > > >External Email > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:23:32PM +0530, Ankur Dwivedi wrote: > >> Adds telemetry function for inline ipsec in net CNXK driver. > >> > >> This series depends on the following patch series: > >> > >> Series: Adding new features and improvements in cnxk crypto PMD > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patches.dpdk.org_p > >> roject_dpdk_list_-3Fseries- > >3D21433&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r > >> > >=ILjiNF3GF25y6QdHZUxMl6JrStU0MIuCtO5dMzn3Ybk&m=szcLmV4s_NiVroE4B > >vC5yW6 > >> > >litxm6Pfo2ymX7QhE1qDSpKTa56lnfmMqfnohRfI6&s=VtKHr9SAo3R0g7lGPoSJlg > >xVxn > >> r2t_TYhHbfH7rS4sE&e= > >> > >> Ankur Dwivedi (2): net/cnxk: add telemetry for inline IPsec for cn9k > >> net/cnxk: add telemetry for inline IPsec for cn10k > >> > >Out of interest, is there any of this telemetry that could be made generic and > >apply at a device-class or library level rather than being tied to the cnxk driver > >only? > I could think of that the callback function registered in rte_telemetry_register_cmd() can be a generic one. The net device (eth_dev) may have ops registered, which can be called depending on dev->tx_offloads and dev->rx_offloads flags. However the data to be returned by telemetry might depend on the PMD. > Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks. So if I understand you correctly, the information returned would vary based on the offload flags only? If that is the case, it does sound like it could be generic, where the offload flags field in the return information identify what other fields are present in the reply. That would then make the telemetry generic and possible to implement at the ethdev level. Is that all correct?