From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [67.231.154.164]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49085F21 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:47:15 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (webmail.solarflare.com [12.187.104.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us4.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 625C8B4006C; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:47:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (84.52.114.114) by ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:47:09 -0700 To: Ferruh Yigit , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic CC: , Thomas Monjalon , , , Harish , Ivan Malov References: <44e451f86e4582815767cf75b4e0f01f5cc60b5f.1507104596.git.shahafs@mellanox.com> <20180316155138.125423-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> From: Andrew Rybchenko Message-ID: <5efda914-7017-9095-2546-ae6e4c627295@solarflare.com> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:47:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180316155138.125423-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: [84.52.114.114] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) X-MDID: 1521625635-jsYn0iYWQa9G Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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 09:47:16 -0000 On 03/16/2018 06:51 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > Don't mandate API to pass port offload configuration during queue setup, > this is unnecessary for devices that support only port level offloads. > > Fixes: 81ac560dc1b4 ("doc: add details on ethdev offloads API") > Cc: shahafs@mellanox.com > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > --- > Cc: Patil, Harish > > Btw, this expectation from API should be clear from source code and API > documentation (doxygen comments in header file) instead of > documentation. Am I missing something or we are doing something wrong > here? > --- > doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > index e5d01874e..3247f309f 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > @@ -303,9 +303,7 @@ Supported offloads can be either per-port or per-queue. > Offloads are enabled using the existing ``DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*`` or ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_*`` flags. > Per-port offload configuration is set using ``rte_eth_dev_configure``. > Per-queue offload configuration is set using ``rte_eth_rx_queue_setup`` and ``rte_eth_tx_queue_setup``. > -To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both device configuration and queue setup. > -In case of a mixed configuration the queue setup shall return with an error. > -To enable per-queue offload, the offload can be set only on the queue setup. > +Per-port offloads should be set on the port configuration. Queue offloads should be set on the queue configuration. > Offloads which are not enabled are disabled by default. > > For an application to use the Tx offloads API it should set the ``ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE`` flag in the ``txq_flags`` field located in ``rte_eth_txconf`` struct. net/sfc has code which double-checks old behaviour. So, it is not just documentation update. We can provide patches if the behaviour change is accepted. IMHO, it should be allowed to specify queue offloads on port level. It should simply enable these offloads on all queues. Also it will match dev_info [rt]x_offload_capa which include both port and queue offloads. Yes, we lose possibility to enable on port level, but disable on queue level by suggested changes, but I think it is OK - if you don't need it for all queues, just control separately on queue level.