Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] net/softnic: sw fall-back for traffic management

["Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:48 AM
> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>; Yigit,
> Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; techboard@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] net/softnic: sw fall-back for traffic
> management
> 
> 08/06/2017 18:43, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> > <snip> ...
> > >
> > > I'm sure I'm missing something.
> > > In my understanding, we do not need to change the ops:
> > > 	- if the device offers the capability, let's call the ops
> > > 	- else call the software fallback function
> > >
> >
> > What you might be missing is the observation that the approach you're
> describing requires changing each and every PMD. The changes are also
> intrusive: need to change the ops that need the SW fall-back patching, also
> need to change the private data of each PMD (as assigned to the opaque
> dev->data->dev_private) to add the context data needed by the patched
> ops. Therefore, this approach is a no-go.
> >
> > We are looking for a generic approach that can gracefully and transparently
> work with any PMD.
> 
> Nobody is participating in this discussion.
> Can we discuss how to proceed in the technical board meeting?

Hi Thomas,

We are working to finalize a new version of the Soft NIC PMD which has a much simplified/straightforward design (we'll explain in the cover letter). We expect to send it in the next few days, hopefully we can target RC2.

I propose you take another look at this version and then decide if we need TB involvement or not?

Regards,
Cristian