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 6CB30A0524; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:39:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930D5C93C; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:39:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2259C938 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:39:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18BD5C0154; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:39:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:39:02 -0500 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= sleQO5bZZW6dWA3uOuI297YZgI2si2nThvDnUcCmJWQ=; b=MZ3OwEPlyU/xHvCb ufyaEzPEAb5zds7a3zcGr11wLw6/Hz121sm8P21lxn6lfGCPUFvlg9FnwUPmYEst b5ZrpMXKKNqxPZCHxbOibxEmAXf8ZotrcnC4UHvooyxHwBbrzVUbyVazrQ+jxnql 9JYMqnG01i3dq1ZHqEIukJrqatSI8DNPh09MZJh5uHTYp5FBMIsmF1Yj3Sx1K2dR r2vVZZr5IspfPpAiIczMNa8DR6ZifM67sgOFqasuoNxF2UXuUWUNYSKL7NCfYQd5 wbJoVsASG8G5DDXjibUvc4MzSHns+3bHHPXX4dv4kuc2R5/KwjmUVg6KmitfglF9 esiQuA== 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=sleQO5bZZW6dWA3uOuI297YZgI2si2nThvDnUcCmJ WQ=; b=SgyJ7t3VH929QVE/0cm4nKzwA9JQns5YSiATPfnmayoUSq0sHjdgmZ51e 3pZ93vn/jpCVBvET4o7SgRtOAm40YHX0v3PfyV6bTq8JdTwYv4oAfhI8R2Io2Zxv iVpL9Ysso4D/59rYSZfGr3wbgNXyrigZdAXe1uafJjjL1WP/4gOxIAq3PMlzSI5A 4FXoC6GoLEcO4T0X54N5YfSlw8nhMssyacmzuyUEraWunUMFrrJSpPvRxNYXaN3X 86IFFznfR+9qXHV+Y3oPJNh+hd5VUq1LVEcxG+4kDQRJVxqLbnUT8Uf/eyurna2M S5+S0vHCTW+jfqriNwo84Oq9a6WPA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudehgedgudduiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth 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 171C63280064; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:38:59 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Ray Kinsella , Neil Horman , Konstantin Ananyev , dev@dpdk.org, Konstantin Ananyev , Andrew Rybchenko , Matan Azrad , Olivier Matz , Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:38:58 +0100 Message-ID: <8621312.xpfG4eBvKg@thomas> In-Reply-To: <0d4de425-6a39-0743-2367-230c34c6cca2@intel.com> References: <20201020120305.1516513-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <0d4de425-6a39-0743-2367-230c34c6cca2@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] doc: announce max Rx packet len field deprecation 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" 26/11/2020 13:34, Ferruh Yigit: > On 11/26/2020 11:28 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > On 11/24/20 8:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > >> Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > > A couple of questions below, but anyway: > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko > > > >> Another open question is from Andrew, if we can remove the ``uint32_t > >> max_rx_pkt_len`` completely from the ``rte_eth_dev_configure()``. > >> This may force applications to have one more additional > >> ``rte_eth_dev_set_mtu()`` call for device initialization, but if > >> applications are OK with the default values most of times, agree that > >> removing is easier solution, please comment. > > > > Still valid > > Yep, waiting for more comments for it. In general, I am in favor of - avoiding redundancy in API - have more specific functions in API So yes, no need to keep a field for rte_eth_dev_configure() if the same can be done with rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(). > > plus I'd remove JUMBO_FRAME offload since > > it is redundant. We have max_mtu and max_rx_pktlen in dev_info. > > Right, I missed that 'max_mtu' & 'max_rx_pktlen' can be used to detect jumbo > frame capability. +1 to remove JUMBO_FRAME offload. If we can manage without this (strange) offload flag, I am for dropping it. > I don't know if should it be part of this deprecation notice, or a separate one. Let's keep this first notice in 20.11 to show the direction. > It is related, but logically not exactly part of this deprecation notice. We can update or add more notices during next year. Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon Applied, thanks