From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
"Marko Kovacevic" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
Allain Legacy <allain.legacy@windriver.com>,
"Matt Peters" <matt.peters@windriver.com>,
Ravi Kumar <ravi1.kumar@amd.com>,
"Ajit Khaparde" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@broadcom.com>,
Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>,
Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>,
Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
"Tomasz Duszynski" <tdu@semihalf.com>,
Dmitri Epshtein <dima@marvell.com>,
"Natalie Samsonov" <nsamsono@marvell.com>,
Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@arm.com>,
"Alejandro Lucero" <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>,
Tetsuya Mukawa <mtetsuyah@gmail.com>,
Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>,
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
Rasesh Mody <rasesh.mody@cavium.com>,
Harish Patil <harish.patil@cavium.com>,
"Shahed Shaikh" <shahed.shaikh@cavium.com>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Jasvinder Singh <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>,
Cristian Dumitrescu <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
Matej Vido <vido@cesnet.cz>,
Maciej Czekaj <maciej.czekaj@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Maxime Coquelin" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>,
Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>,
Yong Wang <yongwang@vmware.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add new offload flag to keep CRC
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:16:42 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <736e85cd-46d7-349b-7950-5922f1f980cb@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b08f8576-dda7-af22-4c4d-0fac319c19dd@intel.com>
On 20.06.2018 21:12, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 6/20/2018 6:39 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 06/20/2018 08:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2018 8:42 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>> On 06/19/2018 09:02 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_KEEP_CRC offload flag added. PMDs that supports keeping
>>>>> CRC should advertise this offload capability.
>>>>>
>>>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP flag will remain one more release
>>>>> default behavior in PMDs are to keep the CRC until this flag removed
>>>>>
>>>>> Until DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP flag is removed:
>>>>> - Setting both KEEP_CRC & CRC_STRIP is INVALID
>>>>> - Setting only CRC_STRIP PMD should strip the CRC
>>>>> - Setting only KEEP_CRC PMD should keep the CRC
>>>>> - Not setting both PMD should keep the CRC
>>>>>
>>>>> A helper function rte_eth_dev_is_keep_crc() has been added to be able to
>>>>> change the no flag behavior with minimal changes in PMDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PMDs that doesn't report the DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_KEEP_CRC offload can
>>>>> remove rte_eth_dev_is_keep_crc() checks next release, related code
>>>>> commented to help the maintenance task.
>>>>>
>>>>> And DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP has been added to virtual drivers since
>>>>> they don't use CRC at all, when an application requires this offload
>>>>> virtual PMDs should not return error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_driver.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_driver.h
>>>>> index c9c825e3f..09a42f8c2 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_driver.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_driver.h
>>>>> @@ -325,6 +325,26 @@ typedef int (*ethdev_uninit_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev);
>>>>> int __rte_experimental
>>>>> rte_eth_dev_destroy(struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev, ethdev_uninit_t ethdev_uninit);
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * PMD helper function to check if keeping CRC is requested
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @param rx_offloads
>>>>> + * offloads variable
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @return
>>>>> + * Return positive if keeping CRC is requested,
>>>>> + * zero if stripping CRC is requested
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static inline int
>>>>> +rte_eth_dev_is_keep_crc(uint64_t rx_offloads)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (rx_offloads & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* no KEEP_CRC or CRC_STRIP offload flags means keep CRC */
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> #ifdef __cplusplus
>>>>> }
>>>>> #endif
>>>> A couple of control questions about the function:
>>>> - shouldn't __rte_experimental be used?
>>> This is an internal function, not API, so I think doesn't require to be
>>> experimental.
>> Just to make my thoughts clear: description does not say that it is an internal.
>> So, nothing prevents external entities to use it. Changes will be API breakage.
> rte_ethdev_driver.h is not public header, it is just for PMDs.
I see. So, it will not be a problem to remove it. OK.
>>>> - if the function remains in the future, it will be a bit asymmetric vs other
>>>> offload flags. Right now it is clear why the function is introduced, but
>>>> it is the question if the function should remain or go away in the future
>>>> (as far as I know no other offload flag has similar function to check).
>>> No other offloads don't have similar functions, this is kind special.
>>>
>>> There will be more changes related CRC next release, CRC_STRIP will be removed
>>> and no flag will mean strip CRC. So the conditions to is_keep_crc will be changed.
>>> This function is to manage this change easier, localize the information in to
>>> single function to make it easy to update later.
>> It is perfectly clear why it is required right now and introduced (as I said
>> from the very beginning).
>> Yes, it is will be the history which explains why it is so, but if we make
>> a step forward and discard the history it will look asymmetric -
>> it will be a function which checks single bit. It is really minor and
>> 100% up to you.
> I see, right it will be just a wrapper to bit check. In this patch it helps to
> revert to logic, from strip_crc to keep_crc. In next release I am OK to remove
> function and return back to bit check in PMDs, will this be more reasonable?
Just for consistency I'd say yes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-20 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-08 22:57 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-09 10:11 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-06-11 9:18 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-11 15:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-06-19 12:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-19 18:02 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-20 7:42 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-06-20 17:24 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-20 17:39 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-06-20 18:12 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-20 21:16 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2018-06-20 10:54 ` Legacy, Allain
2018-06-20 13:44 ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-06-20 16:12 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-21 7:53 ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-06-21 13:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-28 23:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-06-29 12:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-29 11:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-06-29 16:33 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=736e85cd-46d7-349b-7950-5922f1f980cb@solarflare.com \
--to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=alejandro.lucero@netronome.com \
--cc=allain.legacy@windriver.com \
--cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dima@marvell.com \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=harish.patil@cavium.com \
--cc=jasvinder.singh@intel.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=jianbo.liu@arm.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=maciej.czekaj@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
--cc=matt.peters@windriver.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=mtetsuyah@gmail.com \
--cc=nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=nsamsono@marvell.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com \
--cc=rasesh.mody@cavium.com \
--cc=ravi1.kumar@amd.com \
--cc=santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=shahed.shaikh@cavium.com \
--cc=somnath.kotur@broadcom.com \
--cc=tdu@semihalf.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=tiwei.bie@intel.com \
--cc=vido@cesnet.cz \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
--cc=xiao.w.wang@intel.com \
--cc=yongwang@vmware.com \
--cc=yskoh@mellanox.com \
--cc=zhihong.wang@intel.com \
/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).