From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD0320F for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:14:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by wiwh11 with SMTP id h11so40786628wiw.1 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:14:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=plx4WEnpRcFHRmr0cO7pbGBVxthdL3WkFIJ9Qh7h7Aw=; b=HONXk9/uAC8opcAd6qW4HdnslcjXeFIMw6voB5gQj4MNvX/3M0sjlyJfUOm0C2pxAQ 3sq0Jfu3eYU6kOhve0jI4IZjCB7wPdQahLzRQddJlDwd6f72VQMFeRSmZkJz3ujXJ/kR FYzqgcvlQX9M/LrcFB0/qGs753Gqv3YkaEZx54r6IZa0YZLCewviIAl39BOkzYyG/WoZ ogozrvG/N+mitPqwX4O5vqQ2bqYsGiOl3hLN4OuF05EdnXPJi8lvEoALybjHY+QnbbEh GaAUqaKV5gjoIBI71NkNyv8gLnECXhzB2lS0sqZMvqbDuTSskRESrMHjDqpChYPp1x7o exiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/UOLpeCJs7cNI+RJcR1nPIVg+hGLcyDJ+hp06R+2vEsRJOHHdPCDW055N+E6/mASvKvoU X-Received: by 10.180.19.9 with SMTP id a9mr25695959wie.85.1425582846981; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ax10sm11758206wjc.26.2015.03.05.11.14.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:14:06 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Vlad Zolotarov Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:13:30 +0100 Message-ID: <5205726.Fyxt8xNiqp@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.18.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <54F865C7.8030203@cloudius-systems.com> References: <1425554885-16901-1-git-send-email-vladz@cloudius-systems.com> <1835214.fEP04vn92S@xps13> <54F865C7.8030203@cloudius-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] common_linuxapp: Added CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_LRO_SUPPORT option X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:14:07 -0000 2015-03-05 16:18, Vlad Zolotarov: > > On 03/05/15 16:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-03-05 15:39, Vlad Zolotarov: > >> On 03/05/15 15:19, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 2015-03-05 13:28, Vlad Zolotarov: > >>>> Enables LRO support in PMDs. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov > >>>> --- > >>>> config/common_linuxapp | 1 + > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/config/common_linuxapp b/config/common_linuxapp > >>>> index 97f1c9e..5b98595 100644 > >>>> --- a/config/common_linuxapp > >>>> +++ b/config/common_linuxapp > >>>> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ CONFIG_RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS=32 > >>>> CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588=n > >>>> CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS=16 > >>>> CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_RXTX_CALLBACKS=y > >>>> +CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_LRO_SUPPORT=y > >>> Sorry I don't really follow this ixgbe discussion but I wonder why you > >>> would add a compile time option for this feature. > >> The only reason is to be able to detect that the feature is present in > >> the DPDK version u r compiling against because of the API change. > >> Currently, this can't be done using the DPDK version thus we may either > > Why you cannot use version? In development phase? > > When released, you'll be able to test >= 2.1. > > Of course! When the version bumps, the #ifdef I've mentioned above may > be replaced with the version check. > > > > >> do a try-compilation and if it fails define some application-level macro > >> disabling > >> the feature usage or we may define a macro in the library level > >> (together with tons of other such macros like those in the patch snippet > >> above). > > I'd prefer a request rte_eth_dev_info_get() to advertise that the feature > > is available with the device and driver. > > Please let's try to remove config options and #ifdefs. > > This is exactly what my patch does. But that's not ending there - there > is a new feature bit added in rte_eth_rxmode (enable_lro) and in order > to compile the application has to know somehow if this bit is present or > not. How do u propose to do this now? I think it would be better to define something like RTE_HAS_LRO in rte_ethdev.h. > Of course, I can put such macro in my own tree but then I'll have to > rebase all the time and inform other developers that will have to work > against my tree (and not upstream as it's supposed to be) - to update. > This sounds like a hassle thus I added this macro to resolve this issue > until the version is bumped. > > > > >>> What is the benefit of disabling it? > >> No benefit whatsoever.