From: Ido Goshen <Ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] net/pcap: support pcap files and ifaces mix
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 07:15:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM5PR0901MB142793CD694E80E332D21CF0D6750@AM5PR0901MB1427.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e72f4824-0dfa-6bc2-1167-baa49c0db14a@intel.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:51 PM
> To: Ido Goshen <Ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/pcap: support pcap files and ifaces mix
>
> On 6/21/2018 1:24 PM, ido goshen wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: ido goshen <ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
>
> <...>
>
> > +static uint16_t
> > +eth_pcap_tx_mux(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t
> > +nb_pkts) {
> > + struct pcap_tx_queue *tx_queue = queue;
> > + if (tx_queue->dumper)
> > + return eth_pcap_tx_dumper(queue, bufs, nb_pkts);
> > + else
> > + return eth_pcap_tx(queue, bufs, nb_pkts); }
> > +
> > /*
> > * pcap_open_live wrapper function
> > */
> > @@ -773,6 +783,31 @@ struct pmd_devargs {
> > return open_iface(key, value, extra_args); }
> >
> > +static int
> > +open_pcap_rx_mux(const char *key, const char *value, void
> > +*extra_args) {
> > + struct pmd_devargs *pcaps = extra_args;
>
> Do we need this assignment? Why not pass extra_args directly?
[idog] Correct, it can be passed directly
other option is to leave the assignment here and pass strong type to the internal open_rx_pcap/iface
instead of passing it as void*
Any preference?
>
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_RX_PCAP_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_rx_pcap(key, value, pcaps);
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_RX_IFACE_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_rx_iface(key, value, pcaps);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +open_pcap_tx_mux(const char *key, const char *value, void
> > +*extra_args) {
> > + struct pmd_devargs *dumpers = extra_args;
>
> Do we need this assignment? Why not pass extra_args directly?
>
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_TX_PCAP_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_tx_pcap(key, value, dumpers);
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_TX_IFACE_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_tx_iface(key, value, dumpers);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > static struct rte_vdev_driver pmd_pcap_drv;
> >
> > static int
> > @@ -873,8 +908,7 @@ struct pmd_devargs { eth_from_pcaps(struct
> > rte_vdev_device *vdev,
> > struct pmd_devargs *rx_queues, const unsigned int
> nb_rx_queues,
> > struct pmd_devargs *tx_queues, const unsigned int
> nb_tx_queues,
> > - struct rte_kvargs *kvlist, int single_iface,
> > - unsigned int using_dumpers)
> > + struct rte_kvargs *kvlist, int single_iface)
> > {
> > struct pmd_internals *internals = NULL;
> > struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
> > @@ -891,10 +925,7 @@ struct pmd_devargs {
> >
> > eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_rx;
> >
> > - if (using_dumpers)
> > - eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_tx_dumper;
> > - else
> > - eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_tx;
> > + eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_tx_mux;
>
> We shouldn't introduce an extra check in data path. Instead of checking "if
> (tx_queue->dumper)" for _each_ packet, we should check it here once and
> assign proper burst function.
[idog] I don't see how it can be avoided
rte_eth_dev has only single tx_pkt_burst
but now we suggest to support 2 different queue types in a single device
each type requires different end functionality pcap_dump or pcap_sendpkt
btw - it's only once per burst
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-22 7:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-21 12:24 ido goshen
2018-06-21 12:51 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-22 7:15 ` Ido Goshen [this message]
2018-06-26 9:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM5PR0901MB142793CD694E80E332D21CF0D6750@AM5PR0901MB1427.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com \
--to=ido@cgstowernetworks.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).