Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta data

[Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>]

Hi Ori,

On 10/5/21 12:41 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta
>> data
>>
>> Hi Ori,
>>
>> On 10/5/21 11:17 AM, Ori Kam wrote:
>>
>>> One more thing, I think this flag should be added now since you need
>>> it, I think you should report that you don't support it.
>>> since just like we talked there is no real difference between metadata and MARK.
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> It sounds like a trick :) Negative support is *not* a support in fact. DPDK policy
>> requires support of a feature in a PMD and in-tree application. Of course, it is
>> not a problem to add meta. It is really easy to do. I just don't want to add it in
>> v5 to be deleted in v6 because of my above concerns.
>>
> This was not a trick. I understand what you are saying.
> if we say that metadata is the same as mark, (I think we all agree on it) and that
> application need to notify pmd about such operations, I assume it will try to see how to
> request the metadata.

Frankly speaking I feel sick when I think about META and MARK
together. Do we really need both in DPDK?

> I'm O.K. with adding it later and in any case I promise you that if you add it
> it will stay.

Many thanks, I see.

>> @Thomas, what do you think?
>>
>> Andrew.
> 
> Ori
> 

Andrew.