From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc: document NIC features
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 22:37:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7382864.ESfvCiQYHC@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16A01B5A-84DC-436F-B544-F6258BA739E5@intel.com>
07/07/2017 16:20, Wiles, Keith:
>
> > On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>>> On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>>>>> Also some PMDs have few implementations of the datapath (like vector and
> >>>>>> usual). Ideally
> >>>>>> we need common way to highlight it. May be it is OK that control path
> >>>>>> features are duplicated
> >>>>>> in this case, but ideally it should be expressed somehow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree different datapath implementations can be documented better, I
> >>>>> just don't know how to do ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For some drivers there are multiple vector implementations and the
> >>>>> feature set for them is not clear. And as you said control features are
> >>>>> duplicated in the table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps control and datapath features can be separated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or as Thomas suggested sometime ago, vector and scalar version can be
> >>>>> merged into one in the table and feature can be marked as supported if
> >>>>> both scalar and vector has support for it. But this is not solving
> >>>>> multiple vector implementation problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes it is the way to go.
> >>>> The features should not be different from a datapath implementation to
> >>>> another one. So they must be merged in only one column.
> >>>> If a feature is not supported in every datapaths of a driver, it should
> >>>> be marked as partially supported... and the developers must implement it.
> >>>
> >>> But for example for i40e, there are altivec, neon and sse vector
> >>> implementations, how should we document this?
> >>
> >> They are all only one i40 driver. It should offer the same features
> >> regardless of the platform it runs on.
> >> So it should be only one column in the table.
> >
> > If one platform does not implements a feature, it will cause feature
> > will be documented as partial independent from other platform's status,
> > this is unfair for the ones implemented it.
>
> +1
>
> If a single PMD supports different platforms, then we need to be able to identify these NICs plus show the features.
> Having multiple lines in a table is not difficult and helps identify exactly what is supported on all platforms.
No, you miss the point.
I don't care about the table, it is just a tool to target uniform
implementation. DPDK must be multi-platform. It means an application
relying on a feature must work when changing the CPU.
If a PMD maintainer wants its features advertised as fully supported,
he must reject partial datapath implementation.
It is fair because it is the maintainer's choice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-15 16:37 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-06-21 13:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-06-22 19:02 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-02 20:20 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-07-05 13:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-05 16:03 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-07-07 10:55 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2017-07-07 13:37 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-07 13:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-07 13:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-07 14:02 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-07 14:13 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-07 14:20 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-07-07 20:37 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2017-07-07 23:54 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-07-07 15:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-07 15:38 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2017-07-07 17:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-08 9:47 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2017-07-20 9:10 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-20 9:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-07-26 5:08 ` Shreyansh Jain
2017-08-01 10:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-01 15:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-03 8:56 ` Shreyansh Jain
2017-08-03 8:57 ` Shreyansh Jain
2017-08-03 10:42 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-08-03 22:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-04 8:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-04 9:32 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-04 10:04 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-04 10:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-08-04 11:11 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-08-04 11:40 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-04 13:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-04 13:34 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-08-05 9:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=7382864.ESfvCiQYHC@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.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).