From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEDBA04B6; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD06C1D6CC; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E0E1D6BC for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41297580310; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:14:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= bi36hLFn8lcQV4VBkg18snkoqjJ4la9dugVxDDNmgBI=; b=Q+nwz9h/W4DjIgF7 UuuT/fo+u2HrM9yhuMLEaGyGuCfUANqpNb3R65wxhS7AAgPhb64XK9Qr1+WUqyL7 LZ0RH/YxJkIKikp3Veg/tP/6IpHvC0cslGqVnmTp+Q9KBBTENH37WU8Y8na1tG4V 2OU0mAzzzDwROcQH+zNHiXeyOZ0GtKHFDF1cv2XR8uQiLya8YXfjEbnRzvOIBgKU zQvePStQKfD5NhoVreUm0v8OWmiEWpO7SWyhen2BMMwQLlxJhdZ1/xqnRZcOhDjf Tpkrj0zjrU4cu9VzDOfYQBDqHq2vK7iHiIP8+k50RSutz025IHeQ5RoNNKBJGVtQ e4qIFQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=bi36hLFn8lcQV4VBkg18snkoqjJ4la9dugVxDDNmg BI=; b=jgZS5ReJ98vVdZjQ3kLt5zrsMa5t1mmCJlj3HOcbe7dkop+DSAXS6oKNS 6xo1i3zYVliMAeWLRe7SlQTbEWfqqR5qV8tTeuhDz+bwHBAQcMwPKDPVve8SzVyv TCqr+7JscQlp2hAb3dwFP56JesTtTrP6U2xAvRNFKcT5LVFHwbvi/t8FX+9RSO5m ZWuSUB5ZOo/ZdoAvNx7RdoG/aVq99eRoZXGirPpSrtIfvSTwXKWqXqPY5dbr0bLh AoGYzPjb+T+/mm+/6C66WryH9xZwEUYgigC98o3ISEZ/IE/mHi3FfRdkVaA68KzH c8hIFtSTPtd3O4IrfJGFpphqgkzHw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrheejgdekiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E6EC2328005A; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:14:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Andrew Rybchenko , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , Slava Ovsiienko Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , Shahaf Shuler , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "jerinjacobk@gmail.com" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , Asaf Penso Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:26 +0200 Message-ID: <8304375.31BPq7MtOA@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <4d4be3cd-e418-00cf-ce6d-51f6c3e5c078@oktetlabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 12/10/2020 11:56, Slava Ovsiienko: > Hi, Andrew > > Thank you for the comments. > > We have two approaches how to specify multiple segments to split Rx packets: > 1. update queue configuration structure > 2. introduce new rx_queue_setup_ex() routine with extra parameters. > > For [1] my only actual dislike is that we would have multiple places to specify > the pool - in rx_queue_setup() and in the config structure. So, we should > implement some checking (if we have offload flag set we should check > whether mp parameter is NULL and segment descriptions array pointer/size > is provided, if no offload flag set - we must check the description array is empty). > > > @Thomas, @Ferruh: I'd like to hear what other ethdev maintainers think > > about it. > > Yes, it would be very nice to hear extra opinions. Do we think the providing > of extra API function is worse than extending existing structure, introducing > some conditional ambiguity and complicating the parameter compliance > check? Let's try listing pros and cons of each approach, so we can conclude. 1/ update queue config struct 1.1 pro: keep same queue setup function 1.2 con: two mempool pointers (struct or function) 1.3 con: variable size of segment description array 2/ new queue setup function 2.1 con: two functions for queue setup 2.2 pro: mempool pointer is not redundant 2.3 pro: segment description array size defined by the caller What else I'm missing?