From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012DE12001 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 05:06:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Apr 2018 20:06:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,458,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="33911688" Received: from kmsmsx153.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.88]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2018 20:06:55 -0700 Received: from pgsmsx112.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.227]) by KMSMSX153.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.5]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:06:54 +0800 From: "Dai, Wei" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads Thread-Index: AQHTxnLpqHYUzWbG7kaoZSLlmoA1E6P+h4IAgAKw+oCAAZpMsA== Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 03:06:53 +0000 Message-ID: <49759EB36A64CF4892C1AFEC9231E8D66CF6B57E@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <1517493186-6687-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com> <20180328085709.28310-1-wei.dai@intel.com> <7148c9d5-cf94-66db-1a1f-42c522c3edc0@intel.com> <8859984.fs3nS3s03y@xps> In-Reply-To: <8859984.fs3nS3s03y@xps> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZmJmNjM1OGEtYzMyMy00YmZlLWE0ZTMtN2IwZGUyYTJkZWQzIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IlpMTzdjaFYzQVV0Y2ZKQWFXdGJxQ2lIaEl4eW4wS2NOUis2R0xNUks1Vm89In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [172.30.20.205] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 03:07:01 -0000 Thanks, Thomas and Ferruh I think I can implement v3 for this. > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 6:37 PM > To: Yigit, Ferruh ; Dai, Wei > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads >=20 > 13/04/2018 19:31, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 3/28/2018 9:57 AM, Wei Dai wrote: > > > This patch check if a requested offloading is supported in the > > > device capability. > > > A per port offloading feature should be enabled or disabled at same > > > time in both rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and rte_eth_rx_queue_setup( > > > )/rte_eth_tx_queue_setup( ). > > > This patch check if a per port offloading flag has same > > > configuration in rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and > > > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup( )/rte_eth_tx_queue_setup( ). > > > This patch can make such checking in a common way in rte_ethdev > > > layer to avoid same checking in underlying PMD. > > > > I think it is good idea to move common check to the abstraction layer > > as much as possible. > > > > But for this case we are targeting an API change in rc2, I believe > > better wait that API change for this update. >=20 > I think Wei could implement some filtering of offload flags: > If an offload is already enabled at port level, we can filter out them wh= en > enabling again at queue level. > By removing such repetition in ethdev, before calling the PMD op, the PMD > does not need to bother for offloads enabled twice. >=20