Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Support administrative link up and link down

["Ouyang, Changchun" <changchun.ouyang@intel.com>]

Hi Ivan

To some extent, I also agree with you.
But customer hope DPDK can provide an interface like "ifconfig up" and "ifconfig down" in linux,
They can invoke such an interface in user application to repeated stop and start dev frequently, and
Make sure RX and TX work fine after each start, I think it is not necessary to do really device start and stop at
Each time, just need start and stop RX and TX function, so the straightforward method is to enable and disable
tx lazer in ixgbe. 
But in the ether level we need a more generic api name, here is rte_eth_dev_admin_link_up/down, while enable_tx_laser is not suitable, 
Enable and disable tx laser is a way in ixgbe to fulfill the administrative link up and link down.
maybe Fortville and future generation NIC will use other ways to fulfill the admin_link_up/down.

Thanks and regards,
Changchun


-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Boule [mailto:ivan.boule@6wind.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:31 PM
To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Support administrative link up and link down

Hi Changchun,

On 05/22/2014 04:44 PM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> Hi Ivan
> For this one, it seems long story for that...
> In short,
> Some customer have such kind of requirement, they want to repeatedly 
> start(rte_dev_start) and stop(rte_dev_stop) the port for RX and TX, 
> but they find after several times start and stop, the RX and TX can't work well even the port starts,  and the packets error number increase.
>
> To resolve this error number increase issue, and let port work fine 
> even after repeatedly start and stop, We need a new API to do it, after discussing, we have these 2 API, admin link up and admin link down.

If I understand well, this "feature" is not needed by itself, but only as a work-around to address issues when repeatedly invoking the functions ixgbe_dev_stop and ixgbe_dev_start.
Do such issues appear when performing the same operations with the Linux kernel driver?

Anyway, I suppose that such functions have to be automatically invoked by the same code of the network application that invokes the functions ixgbe_dev_stop and ixgbe_dev_start (said differently, there is no need for a manual assistance !)

In that case, would not it be possible - and highly preferable - to directly invoke the functions ixgbe_disable_tx_laser and, then, ixgbe_enable_tx_laser from the appropriate step during the execution of the function ixgbe_dev_start(), waiting for some appropriate delays between the two operations, if so needed?

Regards,
Ivan


>
> Any difference if use " dev_link_start/stop" or " dev_link_up/down"? 
> to me, admin_link_up/down is better than dev_link_start/stop,
>
> If most people think we need change the name, it is ok to rename it.
>
> I don't think we need it in non-physical PMDs. So no implementation in virtio PMD.
>
> Thanks
> Changchun
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Boule [mailto:ivan.boule@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:17 PM
> To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Support administrative link up and 
> link down
>
> On 05/22/2014 08:11 AM, Ouyang Changchun wrote:
>> This patch series contain the following 3 items:
>> 1. Add API to support administrative link up and down.
>> 2. Implement the functionality of administrative link up and down in IXGBE PMD.
>> 3. Add command in testpmd to test the functionality of administrative link up and down of PMD.
>>
...

> Hi Changchun,
>
> The 2 functions "rte_eth_dev_admin_link_up" and "rte_eth_dev_admin_link_down"
> don't have an equivalent in the Linux kernel, thus I am wondering what is their effective usage from a network application perspective.
> Could you briefly explain in which use case these functions can be used for?
>
> By the way, it's not completely evident to infer the exact semantics of these 2 functions from their name.
> In particular, I do not see what the term "admin" brings to the understanding of their role. If it is to suggest that these functions are intended to force the link to a different state of its initial [self-detected] state, then the term "force" would be more appropriate.
>
> Otherwise, if eventually these functions appear to be mandatory, I suggest to rename them "rte_eth_dev_link_start" and "rte_eth_dev_link_stop" respectively, and to apply the same naming conventions in the 2 other patches.
>
> It might also be worth documenting in the comment section of the prototype of these 2 functions whether it makes sense or not to support a notion of link that can be dynamically started or stopped in non-physical PMDs (vmxnet3, virtio, etc).


--
Ivan Boule
6WIND Development Engineer