From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D955A0C47; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:01:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06E741262; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:01:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shelob.oktetlabs.ru (shelob.oktetlabs.ru [91.220.146.113]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE16E4124E for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:01:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (aros.oktetlabs.ru [192.168.38.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by shelob.oktetlabs.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1128A7F52E; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:01:53 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 shelob.oktetlabs.ru 1128A7F52E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=oktetlabs.ru; s=default; t=1633428113; bh=2lm+YHgcYWRMHHLmcUZazIvODfUZtnYAERBeIZV+7Ck=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TX0MV6gtBKjon/g5nWzSAbhQ0o00RCyjCqYQnVyVE/m76cNemea/Fhb/NU/+8ufeB FxpwUebmbrHleJBqFMHbVW8hVygGig9k8Zj53HXHexS8XikaQ4lQkub4zZNxMpajzL zikpjr8xnoJpWHCfY6NZQ9Jq4Ce9GdC6ZDzBYSJk= To: Ori Kam , Ivan Malov , NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon Cc: Andy Moreton , Ray Kinsella , "dev@dpdk.org" , Jerin Jacob , Wisam Monther , Xiaoyun Li , Ferruh Yigit References: <20210902142359.28138-1-ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru> <6e9703ae-9fe0-2656-c08f-da95e44bcdeb@oktetlabs.ru> <06d5d165-a9e0-ecc6-74b5-20a77a88e301@oktetlabs.ru> <437bda42-b20d-9093-30a5-4a75be50c085@oktetlabs.ru> <7a68c7cf-2706-a637-c280-f485a0d24f0b@oktetlabs.ru> <254528d7-6534-0fb6-518f-4467fb09bd17@oktetlabs.ru> From: Andrew Rybchenko Organization: OKTET Labs Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:01:52 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta data X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" Hi Ori, On 10/5/21 12:41 PM, Ori Kam wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Rybchenko >> 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.