From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <linuxarm@huawei.com>, <thomas@monjalon.net>,
<arybchenko@solarflare.com>, <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: add new field to rxq info struct
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:51:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <28901e93-639b-2e16-8a08-9cf939733262@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f71df01a-64c9-a3b3-51b3-bcb8de3586ff@intel.com>
On 2020/8/6 23:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 8/6/2020 5:00 AM, Chengchang Tang wrote:
>> Struct rte_eth_rxq_info will be modified to include a new field, indicating
>> the size of each buffer that could be used for hw to receive packets. Add
>> this field to rte_eth_rxq_info to expose relevant information to upper
>> layer users/application.
>>
>> For more details:
>> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-July/176135.html
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com>
>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>> ---
>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> index ea4cfa7..f08b5f9 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> @@ -110,6 +110,15 @@ Deprecation Notices
>> break the ABI checks, that is why change is planned for 20.11.
>> The list of internal APIs are mainly ones listed in ``rte_ethdev_driver.h``.
>>
>> +* ethdev: A new field will be added to the public data structure
>> + ``rte_eth_rxq_info`` to indicate the buffer size used in receiving packets
>> + for HW. When receive packets, HW DMA won't exceed this size.
>
> Overall +1 to provide this information.
>
> This field is only to report back the PMD configured Rx buffer size, it won't
> affect the configuration step, do you think should we highlight this?
I think it is not necessary because this structure is designed to report PMD
configuration. And it is only used in rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get.
>
> Also will this field be optional or mandatory, this matters for the scope of the
> work for 20.11. I think the intention is to provide an optional field, what do
> you think to documenting that it is optional?
Yes, it is optional. I will highlight this in v3.
>
>> And it will
>> + affect the number of fragments in receiving packets when scatter is enabled.
>
> Is this detail required in the deprecation notice? I see it is relevant but
> the configured Rx buffer size affects the number of the fragments, but reporting
> this value does not.
> Do you want to mention above as motivation to have the field? If so I don't
> expect application to calculate the number of the fragments using this value.
> I am for dropping above sentences if I am not missing anything.
Thank you for this advice. I am not sure what information should be reflected in
a deprecation notice. I seem to have added some redundant and inappropriate stuff.
I will drop these sentences in v3.
>
>> + So, add this field to ``rte_eth_rxq_info`` to expose relevant information to
>> + upper layer user/application.
>
> And not sure above sentences says anything new, looks like duplication to me.
>
>> + This change is planned for 20.11. For more details:
>> + https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-July/176135.html
>> +
>> * traffic manager: All traffic manager API's in ``rte_tm.h`` were mistakenly made
>> ABI stable in the v19.11 release. The TM maintainer and other contributors have
>> agreed to keep the TM APIs as experimental in expectation of additional spec
>>
>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-07 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-05 9:24 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Chengchang Tang
2020-08-05 11:25 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-08-06 4:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Chengchang Tang
2020-08-06 4:00 ` Chengchang Tang
2020-08-06 15:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-08-07 3:51 ` Chengchang Tang [this message]
2020-08-07 7:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-08-06 12:50 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2020-08-07 4:00 ` Chengchang Tang
2020-08-07 10:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Chengchang Tang
2020-08-07 10:35 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-08-07 21:42 ` 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=28901e93-639b-2e16-8a08-9cf939733262@huawei.com \
--to=tangchengchang@huawei.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).