From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB73C5F1D for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:52:17 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2018 05:52:17 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,340,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="35630561" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.63]) ([10.237.221.63]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2018 05:52:14 -0700 To: Shahaf Shuler , Andrew Rybchenko , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "Patil@dpdk.org" , Harish , Ivan Malov References: <44e451f86e4582815767cf75b4e0f01f5cc60b5f.1507104596.git.shahafs@mellanox.com> <20180316155138.125423-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <5efda914-7017-9095-2546-ae6e4c627295@solarflare.com> <4a4330be-a8c4-599d-d8a7-3703e5af285c@intel.com> <49e3a7c8-cda2-c129-70a4-6a166fa1b466@solarflare.com> <4b3cdf50-165e-e3c6-6fb0-d354e0d0dc91@solarflare.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <5412ad89-481d-3cf7-e627-7c0c3a002b54@intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:52:13 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update new ethdev offload API description 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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:52:18 -0000 On 3/21/2018 11:40 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:37 PM, Andrew Rybchenko: >> On 03/21/2018 02:23 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: >>> >>> Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:20 PM, *:*Andrew Rybchenko >>> >>>> Not exactly. We should add statement to allow to enable queue >>>> offloads on port level (to enable on all queues). >>> >>> Why it is needed ? >>> >> >> May be just a paranoia to avoid misreading/misunderstanding. >> >>> Queue offload is also a port offload, for the simple case it is >>> enabled on each of the queues. >>> >>> PMDs should report rx[tx]_offload_capa = port_offloads | >>> queue_offloads >>> >>> So from the application side it enables a **port** offload which, by >>> definition, will set the offload to each of the queues. >>> >>> it is not “enabling queue offload on the port”. >>> >> >> I think it would be really useful for understanding to highlight that what is >> enabled on port level is enabled on all queues regardless queue conf. > > So I think the extra wording should explain that queue offload is also a port offload, and not to mix between the queue and port offload configuration. +1 for more details, the sentences was the outcome of the previous discussion but not clear enough. Perhaps some sample values can be also good. Shahaf do you want to give a try? And is following correct based on latest : 1- Port capability is always covers queue capability P_cap = A, B, C, D Q_cap = B, C, D 2- Requested port offloads should be subset of port capabilities, they will be applied to all queues: P_req = A, B Q1: A, B Q2: A, B 3- Later, requested queue offloads should be subset of queue capabilities, they will be applied to specific queue: Q_req = 1:B, C Q1: A, B, C Q2: A, B Q_req = 2:D Q1: A, B, C Q2: A, D Scenario 2: 1- P_cap = A, B, C, D Q_cap = "" 2- P_req = A, B Q1: A, B Q2: A, B 3- Q_req = "" Q1: A, B Q2: A, B