Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 00/12] preparing l2fwd for eventmode additions

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

18/08/2018 11:58, Joseph, Anoob:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> On 14-08-2018 16:03, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:29:01PM +0530, Joseph, Anoob wrote:
> >> Hi Bruce,
> >>
> >> The reason why l2fwd was chosen was to allow everyone to chip in their ideas
> >> while preparing the framework.
> >> This framework would be extended to other applications, hence needed enough
> >> inputs before expanding to complex applications. If your suggestion is to
> >> make l3fwd event driven first, I'll start looking in that direction.
> > Seems good to me, if others don't have an issue with it.
> >
> >> As for l2fwd, I'm fine with moving event-mode additions to a new app. But
> >> with the present approach, the app would run in both event mode and poll
> >> mode.
> >>
> >> Your thoughts on renaming the existing app to l2fwd-poll and the proposed
> >> app as l2fwd?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Anoob
> > I'm not sure about the name "poll", I think "ethdev" and "eventdev" should be
> > the suffixes, if we want to move in that direction.
> With new adapters, like crypto adapter, event device will be able to 
> handle multiple devices at the same time. It will be able to abstract 
> not just eth device but other devices too (crypto for example). For apps 
> like ipsec-secgw, crypto also would be abstracted with event-device. So 
> what should be the ideal naming convention taking into account all that? 
> Using "eth"& "event" won't fit in for such cases.
> 
> Presently, mode was defined by the way packets were submitted to & 
> received from the device. With poll mode, device(eth, crypto etc) would 
> get packets directly from the core & the core would then poll for 
> completion. In case of event-mode, event device handles this scheduling. 
> Event device would submit (to all devices) and receive packets (from all 
> devices). Core need not poll on the device, in that case. Hence the 
> naming...
> 
> Your thoughts?

I think it is OK to have event mode in examples, in general.
The only concern of Bruce was to keep l2fwd example simple.
So for l2fwd, and only for this one, you can create a new example
called l2fwd-event.