From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5739C8E8D for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2015 06:40:03 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,689,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="812595827" Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.204]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2015 06:40:03 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx114.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.8) by FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:40:03 -0700 Received: from shsmsx152.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.52) by FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:40:02 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.253]) by SHSMSX152.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.106]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:40:01 +0800 From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio_Laranjeiro?= Thread-Topic: RSS API discussion Thread-Index: AdEIF2Avz/LjfuSiSTGu8HlFjDp+1A== Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:40:00 +0000 Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090209FB49@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: [dpdk-dev] RSS API discussion 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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:40:04 -0000 Hi N=E9lio, =20 > Hi Wenzhuo, >=20 > We should discuss about this API for a future release of DPDK because thi= s one > lacks in flexibility. Some other NICs have indirection tables with a > different/configurable size, and the current API does not help to manage = it. >=20 > For ConnectX-4 I have made a lot of hacks to avoid changing the DPDK API, > "[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Add RETA configuration to MLX5". > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/024681.html >=20 > From a user point of view, to update the RETA table, the API expects the = user to > know the size of it to update or query. With your patchset, Intel have t= wo > indirection table sizes now, with Mellanox ConnectX-4, I fixed to the siz= e of 512 > entries because it is not fixed by default. >=20 > How about discussing this in a separate thread? Sure, I changed the tittle. But I'm afraid I don't catch up with you. I have 2 questions, 1, Why the re= ta size cannot be predict on Mellanox ConnectX-4? 2, I don't understand th= e meaning when you say the reta size is not fixed by default on Mellanox Co= nnectX-4. Would you like to give more details of the Mellanox ConnectX-4's behavior? = It'll be helpful to understand this problem. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > -- > N=E9lio Laranjeiro > 6WIND