From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5DEA04B5; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:05:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CD3378B; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:05:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B3F34EE for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:05:33 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: iwhElSW3G7CoTq8K4d5C70vt0coQrDuB8JOXKyLuEzHKGK2Vp/SWgrnrgiSx5T/d9AsB7QqKzM oBCh55C8Xmxg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9786"; a="147344742" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,423,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="147344742" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Oct 2020 04:05:31 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 3Jh90YbIQHwxQ/HDif03ygjs3V16AhTzPJXzDrEHmpKWjBlW8XLO9hI+olth/CKY6ZlPvaDSsq tNJTDAgDXXSg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,423,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="468256121" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.87.204]) ([10.251.87.204]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Oct 2020 04:05:29 -0700 To: Slava Ovsiienko , Raslan Darawsheh , "dev@dpdk.org" Cc: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon , Matan Azrad , Alexander Kozyrev , Ori Kam References: <1603381371-5360-2-git-send-email-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> <1603713305-30991-1-git-send-email-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> <3e0a7114-87d1-99fc-f8b6-6a94e339f4e3@intel.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:05:24 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/6] net/mlx5: add Rx buffer split support 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/26/2020 5:38 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > Hi, Ferruh > > PSB >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ferruh Yigit >> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 19:04 >> To: Raslan Darawsheh ; Slava Ovsiienko >> ; dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon ; Matan Azrad >> ; Alexander Kozyrev ; Ori Kam >> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/6] net/mlx5: add Rx buffer split support >> >> On 10/26/2020 3:25 PM, Raslan Darawsheh wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko >>>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 1:55 PM >>>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>>> Cc: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon ; Matan Azrad >>>> ; Alexander Kozyrev ; Raslan >>>> Darawsheh ; Ori Kam >>>> Subject: [PATCH v4 0/6] net/mlx5: add Rx buffer split support >>>> >>>> This patch adds to PMD the functionality for the receiving buffer >>>> split feasture [1] >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatc >>>> h >> es.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F81154%2F&data=02%7C01%7Crasland%40nvid >>>> >> ia.com%7Ccf4913c6b58346b50b1b08d879a60608%7C43083d15727340c1b7db >> 3 >>>> >> 9efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637393101256743078&sdata=fyiL3PS8r8wv8u >>>> pyOYUtITkVqId9DZsF9LvSJQL9fdM%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko >>>> >>>> --- >>>> v1: >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatc >>>> h >> es.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F81808%2F&data=02%7C01%7Crasland%40nvid >>>> >> ia.com%7Ccf4913c6b58346b50b1b08d879a60608%7C43083d15727340c1b7db >> 3 >>>> >> 9efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637393101256743078&sdata=NPBFlGmVN6bi >>>> GUpzHC%2FrOVmdMoK2fkYRC0%2FDB%2BNlNno%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> v2: >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatc >>>> h >> es.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F81923%2F&data=02%7C01%7Crasland%40nvid >>>> >> ia.com%7Ccf4913c6b58346b50b1b08d879a60608%7C43083d15727340c1b7db >> 3 >>>> >> 9efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637393101256743078&sdata=YwYjMz3jrSYU6 >>>> RBgwl0DmQfmjwwymNJTFjMdx0rsm2U%3D&reserved=0 >>>> - typos >>>> - documentation is updated >>>> >>>> v3: >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatc >>>> h >> es.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F82177%2F&data=02%7C01%7Crasland%40nvid >>>> >> ia.com%7Ccf4913c6b58346b50b1b08d879a60608%7C43083d15727340c1b7db >> 3 >>>> >> 9efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637393101256743078&sdata=HVvLbWS0sJxu >>>> v%2Bc%2BKIMqllBq3edC4v0GD%2BtrwS7%2FsRo%3D&reserved=0 >>>> - extra parameter checks in PMD rx_queue_setup removed >>>> - minor optimizations in PMD >>>> >>>> v4: - rebasing >>>> >>>> Viacheslav Ovsiienko (6): >>>> net/mlx5: add extended Rx queue setup routine >>>> net/mlx5: configure Rx queue to support split >>>> net/mlx5: register multiple pool for Rx queue >>>> net/mlx5: update Rx datapath to support split >>>> net/mlx5: report Rx segmentation capabilities >>>> doc: add buffer split feature limitation to mlx5 guide >>>> >>>> doc/guides/nics/mlx5.rst | 6 +- >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.h | 3 + >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c | 4 ++ >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_mr.c | 3 + >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxq.c | 136 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 3 +- >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.h | 13 +++- >>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_trigger.c | 20 +++--- >>>> 8 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 1.8.3.1 >>> >>> Series applied to next-net-mlx, >>> >> >> The feature was references with different name in each commit, I tried to unify >> it as "Rx buffer split" in next-net. >> Can you please double check the updated commit log/titles? > >>> doc: add Rx buffer split limitation to mlx5 guide >>> net/mlx5: report Rx buffer split capabilities > OK about above. > >>> net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split > It would be better: "net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split on datapath > Isn't the supporting the "Rx buffer split" mean supporting it on the datapath, where else it can be supported, the "on datapath" looks redundant to me. >>> net/mlx5: register multiple pool for Rx queue > OK > >>> net/mlx5: configure Rx buffer split > It would be better: "net/mlx5: configure Rx queue for buffer split" > Like above, isn't the configure "Rx buffer split" mean configuring Rx queue for it, "Rx queue" looks redundant to me. For both above, if you have strong opinion to update them, I can. But I prefer shorter versions. >>> net/mlx5: receive Rx buffer split description > IMO, it would be better: "net/mlx5: handle Rx buffer split description" > or > "net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split description" > OK to use "net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split description" > Could you, please, also squash the hotfix: > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/82218/ > OK