DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add new fields for max LRO session size
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 15:58:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20689129.oFjp0lEai2@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB40190B71DF313089EF09C54DD2840@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

24/09/2019 14:03, Matan Azrad:
> From: Ferruh Yigit
> > On 9/15/2019 8:48 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > Hi Ferruh
> > >
> > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >> On 8/29/2019 8:47 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > >>> It may be needed by the user to limit the LRO session packet size.
> > >>> In order to allow the above limitation, add new Rx configuration for
> > >>> the maximum LRO session size.
> > >>>
> > >>> In addition, Add a new capability to expose the maximum LRO session
> > >>> size supported by the port.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Matan,
> > >>
> > >> Is there any existing user of this new field?
> > >
> > > All the LRO users need it due to the next reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. If scatter is enabled - The dpdk user can limit the LRO session size created
> > by the HW by this field, if no field like that - there is no way to limit it.
> > > 2. No scatter - the dpdk user may want to limit the LRO packet size in order
> > to save enough tail-room in the mbuf for its own usage.
> > > 3. The limitation of max_rx_pkt_len is not enough - doesn't make sense to
> > limit LRO traffic as single packet.
> > >
> > 
> > So should there be more complement patches to this RFC? To update the
> > users of the field with the new field.
> 
> 
> We already exposed it as ABI breakage in the last deprecation notice.
> We probably cannot complete it for 19.11 version, hopefully for 20.02 it will be completed.

We won't break the ABI in 20.02.
What should be done in 19.11?



  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-02 13:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-29  7:47 Matan Azrad
2019-09-13 17:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-09-15  7:48   ` Matan Azrad
2019-09-16 15:37     ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-09-24 12:03       ` Matan Azrad
2019-10-02 13:58         ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-10-18 16:35           ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-18 18:05             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-10-22 12:56             ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-27  9:04               ` Matan Azrad
2019-10-29 12:25                 ` 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=20689129.oFjp0lEai2@xps \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=matan@mellanox.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).