From: "Guo, Jia" <jia.guo@intel.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/i40e: fix X722 macro absence result in compile
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:10:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d9cd638b-da9c-14f9-1cf5-547df36891f2@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e857da16-0149-c612-bca7-f668ce7c81ac@intel.com>
hi,yigit
Because of remove "#ifdef x722" will related with some prior patch
and need related folks to make agreement on that, so we need to make a
discuss later to get a conclusion. we definitely confidence that we will
get the better balance base on the code maintenance effective. so just
ignore this patch and i will rework new patch later. Thanks your great
review and also appricate konstanitin's suggestion!
On 10/19/2016 12:22 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 10:54 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>>> hi, Konstantin
>>> Thanks your constructive suggestion. I don't think your question is
>>> silly and we also think about the code style simply and effective, but
>>> may be i would interpret the reason why we do that.
>>>
>>> 1) Sure, user definitely can choose to define the macro or not when
>>> building dpdk i40e PMD, but i don't think it is
>>> necessary to invoke a ret_config option to let up layer user freedom use
>>> it, because only the older version i40e driver does not support X722,
>>> the newer version i40e driver will always support X722, so the macro
>>> will be default hard code in the makefile. and we will use mac.type to
>>> distinguish the difference register configure in run time. So we may
>>> consider the macro just like a flag that highlight the difference of the
>>> shared code between X710 and X722, that would benify the X710/X722 pmd
>>> development but hardly no use to exposure to the up layer user.
>>>
>>> 2) i think the answer also could find from above. But i think if we
>>> develop go to a certain stage in the future, mute the macro or use
>>> script to remove them like the way from hw driver, for support all
>>> device types maybe not a bad idea, right?
>> Sorry, but I still didn't get it.
>> If i40e driver will always support X722 then why do we need that macro at all?
>> Why just not to remove it completely then?
>> Same about run-time vs build-time choice:
>> If let say i40e_get_rss_key() has to behave in a different way, why not to create
>> i40e_get_rss_key_x722() and use it when hw mactype is x7222?
>> Or at least inside i40e_get_rss_key() do something like:
>> if (hw->mac.type == I40E_MAC_X722) {...} else {...}
>> ?
>> Why instead you have to pollute whole i40e code with all these #ifdef x7222/#else ...?
>> Obviously that looks pretty ugly and hard to maintain.
> It is not possible to remove "#ifdef x7222" from shared code, but what
> about removing it from DPDK piece of the code, and code as it is always
> defined?
>
> If this is OK, this patch is not more required.
> And the removing #ifdef work can be done in another patch later.
>
>> Konstantin
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-19 6:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-26 10:51 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] drivers/i40e: fix the hash filter invalid calculation in X722 Jeff Guo
2016-09-29 6:29 ` Wu, Jingjing
2016-09-29 18:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-09-30 6:05 ` Wu, Jingjing
2016-09-30 9:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-10-16 1:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/i40e: fix X722 macro absence result in compile Jeff Guo
2016-10-16 1:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers/i40e: fix the hash filter invalid calculation in X722 Jeff Guo
2016-10-18 16:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-10-20 2:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: " Jeff Guo
2016-10-24 9:10 ` Wu, Jingjing
2016-10-25 2:11 ` Guo, Jia
2016-10-25 2:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Jeff Guo
2016-10-25 2:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] net/i40e: fix hash filter invalid issue " Jeff Guo
2016-10-25 10:22 ` Wu, Jingjing
2016-10-25 12:29 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-10-16 13:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/i40e: fix X722 macro absence result in compile Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-10-17 7:44 ` Guo, Jia
2016-10-17 9:54 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-10-17 10:14 ` Chilikin, Andrey
2016-10-18 16:22 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-10-19 6:10 ` Guo, Jia [this message]
2016-10-16 1:32 Jeff Guo
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=d9cd638b-da9c-14f9-1cf5-547df36891f2@intel.com \
--to=jia.guo@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@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).