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 40038A0548; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:08:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FC9410D8; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:08:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-109-mta175.mxroute.com (mail-109-mta175.mxroute.com [136.175.109.175]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28564014F for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:08:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from filter004.mxroute.com ([149.28.56.236] filter004.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-109-mta175.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 178fe6ac3ef0004964.001 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:08:33 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 1a5c798127d7cb1cbf65b0e6e8f1b1c193a5ca7e856a X-Originating-IP: [149.28.56.236] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ashroe.eu; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=T9AUGzSLsL1E3FHIuerlSxKCVcT6YiOjTrBPr4SuqU8=; b=JebrCaR/JvBt6U9WvEXjkZ0zKP jiKEGlltgiyusDUpGHYie4WuhRbfnIhhhvB7ZnGxaKdoIK7Z7wo0rOHZh8x1slSwHJuNgkZvwmFX+ fCQVp6vkr0SsY7xNyxxou4ODSafd++x57qpmcbacBskEUKDkD38J1zb6FVUtVYgrzW3qRvldefJC4 F5KvS3Eh3NRo0Gdn+eDr5ZJ+vEQ/aqcP8OXRvhDNg4L4rWHI87SGEGhy5xwN1HkcMtG0+XezEG73i S8NXg3GmD0Qypi/XMQJmQ6FwaoY71q+rp4rz0otAxupmKxIQ3BqCthDCutZ2ZWp/vlpzNnrBlVKNE b1c6tg1A==; To: Thomas Monjalon , Lijun Ou , Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, linuxarm@openeuler.org References: <1618454426-21457-1-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> <2292057.lhpI95xzKh@thomas> <04c856eb-7112-adf3-f072-ea1a5323c775@intel.com> <6803418.Bd1l75JkzX@thomas> From: "Kinsella, Ray" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:08:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6803418.Bd1l75JkzX@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AuthUser: mdr@ashroe.eu Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V4] ethdev: add queue state when retrieve queue information 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 Sender: "dev" On 16/04/2021 10:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 16/04/2021 11:41, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 4/16/2021 9:58 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 16/04/2021 10:46, Lijun Ou: >>>> Currently, upper-layer application could get queue state only >>>> through pointers such as dev->data->tx_queue_state[queue_id], >>>> this is not the recommended way to access it. So this patch >>>> add get queue state when call rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get and >>>> rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get API. >>>> >>>> Note: After add queue_state field, the 'struct rte_eth_rxq_info' size >>>> remains 128B, and the 'struct rte_eth_txq_info' size remains 64B, so >>>> it could be ABI compatible. >>> [...] >>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst >>>> @@ -251,6 +251,12 @@ ABI Changes >>>> function was already marked as internal in the API documentation for it, >>>> and was not for use by external applications. >>>> >>>> +* Added new field ``queue_state`` to ``rte_eth_rxq_info`` structure >>>> + to provide indicated rxq queue state. >>>> + >>>> +* Added new field ``queue_state`` to ``rte_eth_txq_info`` structure >>>> + to provide indicated txq queue state. >>> >>> Not sure we should add a note here for additions which >>> do not break ABI compatibility. >>> It may be confusing. >>> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> What do about adding the documentation to "API Changes" section? >> Since 'rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()'/'rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get()' can get >> 'queue_state' now, which may taken as API change. > > That's an addition. > The users have nothing to change in their existing code, > so I think we don't need a note in API or ABI change. > The only required note would be in the "New Features". Well it definitely isn't an ABI change, however it still is an API addition. I don't know, if additions qualify as changes. Ray K