From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C29E5A6A for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D048A20AE2; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:49:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=OeB5o2hXoyQVIUe uEoJxiJWLtbTf4i9ocAB3cFvnolc=; b=khmJaBhyHft8c1O2jfxCnuI4GNobCFT AGXywkz2Bxpc2gQpJ11+PpH951o1QzE7W0IdBAbamGOeic7wjvmEB/c21fmc2ftD RqqHtyOlwFiZIgzuaYV6g5xxlkBIuAQ49PLCSxtiWC2AKm5b4GvekvYPVr1sQWlg ljOQm2WHwkNw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=OeB5o2hXoyQVIUeuEoJxiJWLtbTf4i9ocAB3cFvnolc=; b=BnwcagXS 7RY7OwxebR8s4L3epbrsDQabmlhVqRIM8j0hfMqa4729uxMocj49qWCxrxnE5Z6Q qO54PbGPWycdioslNnGROpxJ18OipruttiL2VVS6jz77X6Wmr3kVs1wdDhUjgT5F BI2l5tLESOwfgjYfpmQicH+s4DIJ7sHY9cMcQczIvOMQHEPSgjK6TrKAdbrh8pBd 40cpVP3wMNxHTSVUr/JUK2DE0hA0UN9t2YWPSp+HKz6XwzoEkXfeKfbbtG41ulRW ueWA7DH2s+K7VGmBF3IE4fHa7KEPhBHD4iGCz7nkIqsWnYKNEbW7c5onG5sOnbNw xKjwibftJA8aiQ== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: zRvr/u45ZjLRv5d9EAMSmGGzNSR49t4lKp4ZHNFT/NAy 1499694578 Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 64B487E809; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:49:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "Singh, Jasvinder" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "Glynn, Michael J" , Adrien Mazarguil Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:49:37 +0200 Message-ID: <1897417.adnAssk0iV@xps> In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BA7D90C@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1499182731-86830-1-git-send-email-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> <6030891.m1QB3o9leh@xps> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BA7D90C@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:39 -0000 10/07/2017 15:21, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 10/07/2017 12:55, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > > 2/ Some functions are exposed in the API to query the ops. > > > > It seems dangerous and useless: > > > > - rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get > > > > - rte_tm_ops_get > > > > > > Thomas, hopefully this is a misunderstanding on your side :(((. > > > > Don't worry :) > > > > > This is a critical point that we debated ad nauseam on this email list (RFC, V1 > > -V6) and privately as well. You were included in the conversation, you also > > provided feed-back that we incorporated in the code, as documented in the > > patchset history log. > > > > > > This is simply the mechanism that we (including you) agreed to use for > > modularizing the DPDK ethdev by adding new functionality in a modular plug- > > in way using separate namespace. This is the exact clone of the same > > mechanism that rte_flow is using and was merged in DPDK release 17.02. > > Why this change on the fundamentals now? > > > > > > Hopefully, it is just misunderstanding. > > > > I mean that only the drivers need to get the ops. > > The applications are using some dedicated functions rte_tm_* , right? > > So the applications does not need direct ops access with > > rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get()? > > Sorry if it is my misunderstanding. > > > > About rte_tm_ops_get, I don't remember why I talked about it. > > It seems exposed only to drivers. My mistake. No issue there. > > OK, so we're good then? Not exactly. In my understanding, rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get() is useless. Should it be removed then?