From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new offloads API
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:42:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59831a36-6565-9c4f-2d8e-8bdb096246e3@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F23E217@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 8/30/2017 11:16 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 8:51 AM
>> To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ananyev, Konstantin
>> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new offloads API
>>
>> On 8/30/2017 7:30 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>> Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:55 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>> Considering the re-configuration is risky, and without other ideas I will
>>>> need to fall back to the error flow case.
>>>>>> Are we OK with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can take the risk of keeping this call to
>>>>> rte_eth_dev_configure() in the middle of rte_eth_rx_queue_setup().
>>>>> In theory it should be acceptable.
>>>>> If we merge it soon, it can be better tested with every drivers.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt about taking that risk. Some driver does HW configuration via
>>>> configure() and combination of start/stop, setup_queue and configure can
>>>> be complex.
>>>>
>>>> I am for generating error for this case.
>>>>
>>>> Generating error also can be good motivation for PMDs to adapt new
>>>> method.
>>>
>>> Adding Ananyev suggestion from other thread:
>>> For tx_prepare() work, we used the following approach:
>>> 1. submitted patch with changes in rte_ethdev and PMDs we are familiar with (Intel ones).
>>> For other PMDs - patch contained just minimal changes to make it build cleanly.
>>> 2. Asked other PMD maintainers to review rte_ethdev changes and provide a proper patch
>>> for the PMD they own.
>>
>> tx_prepare() is a little different, since it was not clear if all PMDs
>> needs updating that is why asked to PMD owners, and the ones requires
>> updating already has been updated with ethdev patch. Here we know all
>> PMDs need updating, and they need proper time in advance.
>>
>>>
>>> So I am OK with both suggestions. Meaning:
>>> 1. Define the case were application use the new offloads API with PMD which supports the old one as an error.
>>> 2. apply patches to ethdev with the above behavior.
>>>
>>> Just to emphasize, it means that PMDs which won't move to the new API by the end of 17.11 will not be able to run with any of the
>> examples and application on DPDK tree (and also with other applications which moved to the new API), as I plan to submit patches which
>> convert them all to the new API.
>>
>> I think it is good idea to update samples/apps to new method, but this
>> can be short notice for PMD owners.
>>
>> Can we wait one more release to update samples/apps, to give time for
>> PMDs to be updated, since old applications will work with new PMDs
>> (thanks to your helpers), I believe this won't be a problem.
>
> I am not sure what is your suggestion here?
> Support both flavors of PMD API for 17.11?
Support both with an exception, when application uses new method but PMD
uses old one, throw an error (because of above discussed technical issue).
This lets existing applications run without problem, and pushes PMDs to
adapt new method.
Your suggestion to have only new method and convert all PMDs to new
method is good, but I am not sure if this is realistic for this release,
since different PMDs have different pace for updates.
ethdev updates can be done in this release, with the PMDs that already
changed to new method. The sample/app modifications Shahaf mentioned can
be done in the beginning of the next release, and this gives time to
remaining PMDs until end of next release. What do you think?
> Konstantin
>
>>
>>>
>>> Any objection to this approach?
>>>
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-30 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-07 10:54 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev " Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-07 10:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/4] ethdev: rename Rx and Tx configuration structs Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-23 21:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-07 10:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 2/4] ethdev: introduce Rx queue offloads API Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-23 12:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-23 13:06 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-23 21:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-29 12:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-30 6:22 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-29 13:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-07 10:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 3/4] ethdev: introduce Tx " Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-07 10:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new " Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-23 12:28 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-23 13:13 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-23 22:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-24 7:12 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-25 13:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-29 12:55 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-30 6:30 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-30 7:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-30 10:16 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-30 12:42 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2017-08-30 13:25 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-30 14:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-28 14:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-29 6:26 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-29 9:43 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-23 6:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev " Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-23 22:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-25 10:31 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-08-27 6:05 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-08-28 5:00 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-08-28 10:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-09-05 7:07 ` Jerin Jacob
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=59831a36-6565-9c4f-2d8e-8bdb096246e3@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).