From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B056A0032;
	Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:25:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C68242B73;
	Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:25:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F6B42B6D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:25:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF735C014D;
 Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:25:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from
 :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1657805130; x=
 1657891530; bh=BfMLph6XlGZ2BELUrNFDxZjCHqcrdBsjex5Ym1wNsNw=; b=P
 ZzaLCt+tcFJ/Qj40pH0HcvEH2UoN7Qk1HsjDO0Pb+VyyYHSgHD//Q2GDR9PQ7jCj
 BV+1zo5Pyua6SkVQC6YLqBhdViB0VWJfyYOnWwYW+QRoRqc29CyFaNCjMtF1oKtw
 hrK70WayB0l68MNXD3FyjnTV0iXSv9JnHTFuRljikYl+JhKpEeaRUPweFsTDPLSc
 D6CPHWSRSDTQ7Qn8gWp6OpywZ5GDLasS0HNiLGBjy62RN5luGQXgnNK5xQ1Klj0Y
 ASPeVMzA7tJpWIDYyemx+MpteT5HZk2ONAp1qgA7VHGjueUgH4YvoPFNIHDnB0bg
 5wWsgtnnodEQOntUF8Kcg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding
 :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from
 :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy
 :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1657805130; x=
 1657891530; bh=BfMLph6XlGZ2BELUrNFDxZjCHqcrdBsjex5Ym1wNsNw=; b=o
 Km48LLeNF8J40e6clkNFsLwJ3Ckr/xkJE5CjXDmfbPRWDW71k67voQBOThVfECOn
 l+bR0ZDlNE+S1SCcFq5DM0bOWUH91pDs1ZrecGjT3KAPgaBktxZ3jk/BxFkJiolC
 HuGfswT+8qcbdlkOHVA2WX4vcbJEwZYoZ3gmDN1lXk7RaQaLp37k/Lw4P36PEVyw
 fI8l16NXjFdVSvJJOYEEPZRfR+k+1Qd8XjYlph2DnCNOc1BzkK7d3rJQa+AcMM8o
 aUdX5NQVabwGEl3MfYu9ZkbPVQftG754t8cAHfbcbG5HYaWnt7VD3M+uFSC8BUXD
 L2Ezy64c1tbxwkGPNi3Lw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:SRnQYnW2suhDOlUHn31edrNqty3IbOq4lUycwJGodHVvb6QpqPq9Eg>
 <xme:SRnQYvnp1pVRy1ZLuMCwBt9BtHfkneZHcIi8YnE56jR91yQloOEHsV91QWbPWheR7
 epo8nIb_16VJqdJQA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:SRnQYjato3mpWG-MXlb4ULo9X-bYSs8iQCwvn481vutpBVLqcPlYrjvmhAnyTXCjYobjrro9JhtlQr2rhh-mNYcLvw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudejledgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
 fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
 uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne
 cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm
 rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc
 ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeejjefffffgffekfefflefgkeelteejffelledugefhheelffet
 heevudffudfgvdenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih
 iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho
 nhdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:SRnQYiWw-p4CvK2yrgd1YAcShOQOfqNZb0lgPatPQM0dnFVI-EGWIw>
 <xmx:SRnQYhkCXp8KNfhw9zFs9hiP5IezfAtPFIkaGeH29RVInUIwaOrLiw>
 <xmx:SRnQYvf2224VZatqSO6Ck2K549yp89PK6jny_nzwm-PQI8_xccSgHQ>
 <xmx:ShnQYqdMnRYnBx8-zcFN38mdxu2fG35RXIJ4llLeAQXWDVCdLnkLdw>
Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu,
 14 Jul 2022 09:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Ding, Xuan" <xuan.ding@intel.com>,
 "andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
 "ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com" <ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com>
Cc: "mdr@ashroe.eu" <mdr@ashroe.eu>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 "mb@smartsharesystems.com" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 "asekhar@marvell.com" <asekhar@marvell.com>,
 "pbhagavatula@marvell.com" <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
 "grive@u256.net" <grive@u256.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce header split deprecation
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:25:25 +0200
Message-ID: <5613126.F5Vx1aKkY9@thomas>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5513C51A807651D2878DC3FCE7889@BN9PR11MB5513.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20220523142016.44451-1-xuan.ding@intel.com>
 <6226385.mzcYPaeBD7@thomas>
 <BN9PR11MB5513C51A807651D2878DC3FCE7889@BN9PR11MB5513.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org

14/07/2022 14:54, Ding, Xuan:
> Hi,
> 
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 14/07/2022 07:50, Ding, Xuan:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > 23/05/2022 16:20, xuan.ding@intel.com:
> > > > > From: Xuan Ding <xuan.ding@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT offload was introduced some
> > time
> > > > ago
> > > > > to substitute bit-field header_split in struct rte_eth_rxmode. It
> > > > > allows to enable header split offload with the header size
> > > > > controlled using split_hdr_size in the same structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now, no single PMD actually supports
> > > > > RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT with above definition. Many
> > > > > examples and test apps initialize the field to 0 explicitly. The
> > > > > most of drivers simply ignore split_hdr_size since the offload is
> > > > > not advertised, but
> > > > some double-check that its value is 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT and split_header_size
> > field
> > > > > will be removed in DPDK 22.11.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Ding <xuan.ding@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > > index 4e5b23c53d..b8114f29ed 100644
> > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > > @@ -125,3 +125,7 @@ Deprecation Notices
> > > > >    applications should be updated to use the ``dmadev`` library instead,
> > > > >    with the underlying HW-functionality being provided by the ``ioat`` or
> > > > >    ``idxd`` dma drivers
> > > > > +
> > > > > +* ethdev: After bit-field header split was removed, the
> > > > > +``RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT``
> > > > > +offload and the ``split_hdr_size`` field in structure
> > > > > +``rte_eth_rxmode`` to enable header split offload are not
> > > > > +supported in any
> > > > PMDs. They will be removed in DPDK 22.11.
> > > >
> > > > It would have been good to talk about rte_eth_rxseg_split which is
> > > > similar and configured per-queue.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your suggestion.
> > >
> > > But I'm a little confused, are you referring that I need to involve protocol
> > based buffer split?
> > > About the deprecation of header split, I haven't realized its connection to
> > rte_eth_rxseg_split.
> > 
> > What???
> > In old versions of your patch "ethdev: introduce protocol type based header
> > split"
> > you wrote:
> > "
> > A new proto field is introduced in the
> > rte_eth_rxseg_split structure reserved field to specify header protocol type.
> > With Rx offload flag RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT enabled and
> > protocol type configured, PMD will split the ingress packets into two separate
> > regions.
> > "
> 
> It has a long history... 
> It was corrected in v4 that RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT is used to enable header
> split offload with the header size controlled using "split_hdr_size".
> But no single PMD actually supports RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT for this purpose.
> So we finally decide to deprecate this flag.
> 
> http://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220402104109.472078-2-wenxuanx.wu@intel.com/
> 
> In following series, I use RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT instead. It is for multi-segments packet
> split. And it still needs a "proto_hdr" field in rte_eth_rxmode to configure split location.

I know this history because I was the one asking you to deprecate this.
But it seems you didn't get the big picture.

> > > Currently there are 2 acks, add more PMD maintainers to help review
> > > this deprecation notice for header split, thanks a lot!
> > 
> > I cannot say my feeling strong enough.
> 
> So IMO the deprecation for header split is not relevant with buffer split. But we can still clean the code.
> Hope it make things clearer.

They are almost the same features.
So when deprecating one, it is important to mention what remains.
If needed RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT can still be used
and it is configured per-queue,
while RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT was configurable per-port.

Andrew, Ferruh, do you agree to improve this deprecation notice
by adding above information?