From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44284A2EDB
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Wed,  2 Oct 2019 15:58:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D12A1BEE3;
	Wed,  2 Oct 2019 15:58:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7431BED8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  2 Oct 2019 15:58:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C00521F92;
 Wed,  2 Oct 2019 09:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 02 Oct 2019 09:58:40 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp;
 bh=2jDFGgKtVnDbVSx9kK7iaNsWmdYM2mFq0fwjC9iXUJ0=; b=OrvRYF6l3h+E
 QRsXXplLKNlDY196XAr2aeBO1VwWfTiPiYvkHCPDthd18VL2W2ryuEMLbPk2wSC+
 gCPR8koRE8HRYGS/zw6hebjG/AjgBiAJZjDU5BH6n/jTH6Hduv5zDqqOIFSfigVS
 8brJE/ShjLRc2V4z0hXfIj3l5YCNUqc=
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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
 :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=2jDFGgKtVnDbVSx9kK7iaNsWmdYM2mFq0fwjC9iXU
 J0=; b=A2+/ig4FJgmzRnUz+gJcbHfK+nJ0OplpUL3g4DmTNkqxCumpa1plguvpZ
 5fF6bVTdKMPK8xqmC/pZVwRGeAmxeJrNPD8N8CgmDyzis9Hw4Tv6+cuMPdWx+V4h
 YhtzPeS1twmRC/+vMnuym+Fhu/PZzO9pvF0kQUclWDCi6cPx/zQ+djR6lhIQQx47
 rE5GNVYt7EyraheB8hjZkYwhuM4zBqSeegmapLR+V+GhYzNNGckVxcstp3VD3b9O
 rSabTjSZrKcS/tWLTKUUHU6qw5utT05qMWrkvc+jRZtPhC436ZaIqlpNj+Qp8QmG
 ah5wFMJoKw8COmsktOjVuGcSPAvUQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:D62UXUtZDe6eXbOKrqRO_NpsANpObqJ4solUy3_YjSy-mXDBq8nfCg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrgeeigdejudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
 curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
 uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc
 fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs
 ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph
 epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho
 mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:D62UXbs9pHhfHFsaP9VWSOG8cqLlPy4nowLcURIWI0YR_R-Heq7vfQ>
 <xmx:D62UXZHtCZlJJQwc0p4phBWaltQz3R7JH4CNOZ5qZc5eAW6hEWW8Sg>
 <xmx:D62UXahaUcPL4Pt_Ec3TfEZ15fETL261znF-_xCKESUSAgPiGDl9TA>
 <xmx:EK2UXWxDByvFfI5JdlrcfCaZbf3WKQBPtoQ8VH9DAbvDLriGx9hWyA>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B07738005B;
 Wed,  2 Oct 2019 09:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
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>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 15:58:36 +0200
Message-ID: <20689129.oFjp0lEai2@xps>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB40190B71DF313089EF09C54DD2840@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1567064832-22457-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
 <b658be35-c660-470e-c20f-1beb8a5a9080@intel.com>
 <AM0PR0502MB40190B71DF313089EF09C54DD2840@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add new fields for max LRO session size
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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?