From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785CDA04AC; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 05:52:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D2D2B87; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 05:52:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.191]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD6829D6 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 05:52:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from DGGEMS414-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 07FD6EF9AC57E33AD978; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.65.81.238) by DGGEMS414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:27 +0800 To: Ferruh Yigit , References: <1596619484-19714-1-git-send-email-tangchengchang@huawei.com> <1596686446-8138-1-git-send-email-tangchengchang@huawei.com> <1596686446-8138-2-git-send-email-tangchengchang@huawei.com> CC: , , , From: Chengchang Tang Message-ID: <28901e93-639b-2e16-8a08-9cf939733262@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:51:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.65.81.238] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: add new field to rxq info struct 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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 >> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko >> --- >> 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 >> > > > . >