From: "ZELEZNIAK, ALEX" <az5157@att.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Shah, Rahul R" <rahul.r.shah@intel.com>,
"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:25:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e9vr0pj67s9qe6tr9a4jiulq.1475090701301@email.android.com> (raw)
----------------------------------------
From: "az5157@att.com<mailto:az5157@att.com>" <az5157@att.com<mailto:az5157@att.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 12:23:06 PM
To: "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com<mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>>, "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com<mailto:bernard.iremonger@intel.com>>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com>>, "dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>>, "Jerin Jacob" <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com<mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>>, "Shah, Rahul R" <rahul.r.shah@intel.com<mailto:rahul.r.shah@intel.com>>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com<mailto:wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management
>
> 2016-09-28 16:52, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> >
> > >
> > > 2016-09-28 14:30, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]
> > > > > 2016-09-28 13:26, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]
> > > > > > > 2016-09-28 11:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > > > > > If we this way (force user to include driver specific headers
> > > > > > > > and call driver specific functions), how you guys plan to make this functionality available for multiple driver types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features.
> > > > > > > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would need similar functionality for i40e.
> > > > > > > > Does it mean that they'll have to re-implement this part of their code again?
> > > > > > > > Or would have to create (and maintain) their own shim layer that would provide some s of abstraction?
> > > > > > > > Basically their own version of rte_ethdev?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No definitive answer.
> > > > > > > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which
> > > > > > > is implemented only in 1 or 2 drivers? If the application tries to use it, we can imagine that a specific range of hardware is
> > > expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, as I understand, it is a specific subset of supported HW (just Inel NICs for now, but different models/drivers).
> > > > > > Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all HW from this subset without rebuilding/implementing the
> > > app.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it is an important question.
> > > > > > > Previously we had the issue of having some API which are too
> > > > > > > specific and need a rework to be used with other NICs. In order
> > > > > > > to avoid such rework and API break, we can try to make them
> > > > > > > available in a driver-specific or vendor-specific staging area,
> > > > > > > waiting for
> > > > > a later generalization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you remind me why you guys were that opposed to ioctl style approach?
> > > > > > It is not my favorite thing either, but it seems pretty generic way to handle such situations.
> > > > >
> > > > > We prefer having well-defined functions instead of opaque ioctl-style encoding.
> > > > > And it was not clear what is the benefit of ioctl.
> > > > > Now I think I understand you would like to have a common ioctl service for features available on 2 drivers. Right?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > Example (trying to read your mind):
> > > > > rte_ethdev_ioctl(port_id, <TLV encoding VF_PING service and VF id>); instead of
> > > > > rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id);
> > > > > rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); Please confirm I understand
> > > > > what you are thinking about.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, you read my mind correctly :)
> > >
> > > Both could coexist (if ioctl was accepted by community).
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > What about starting to implement the PMD functions and postpone ioctl to later with a dedicated thread?
> >
> > You mean something like:
> > - 16.11: implement rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping()
> > - 17.02:
> > a) implement rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping()
> > b) introduce ioctl PMD API
> > c) make possible to vf_ping via ioctl API
> > ?
> > If so, then it sounds like reasonable approach to me.
> > Though would be inserting to hear what other guys think.
>
> Yes.
> I would just add that we have to start a discussion thread to decide
> wether we'll add an ioctl call in 17.02 or not.
>
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alex Z.
________________________________
From: "az5157@att.com" <az5157@att.com<mailto:az5157@att.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 12:23:06 PM
To: "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com<mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>>, "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com<mailto:bernard.iremonger@intel.com>>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com>>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>>, "Jerin Jacob" <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com<mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>>, "Shah, Rahul R" <rahul.r.shah@intel.com<mailto:rahul.r.shah@intel.com>>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com<mailto:wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management
next reply other threads:[~2016-09-28 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-28 19:25 ZELEZNIAK, ALEX [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-08-18 13:48 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/5] " Bernard Iremonger
2016-08-26 9:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 " Bernard Iremonger
2016-08-26 9:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: " Bernard Iremonger
2016-09-09 14:22 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-09-12 16:28 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-13 9:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-15 16:46 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-22 17:04 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-23 9:20 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-09-23 9:36 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-23 9:53 ` Richardson, Bruce
2016-09-23 13:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-23 17:02 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-23 17:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-26 15:37 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-26 16:59 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-27 10:31 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-27 13:01 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-09-27 14:13 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-28 11:23 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-09-28 12:31 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-28 13:01 ` Richardson, Bruce
2016-09-28 13:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-28 13:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-09-28 14:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-28 14:30 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-09-28 14:48 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-28 15:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-28 15:24 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-09-28 14:59 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-28 16:52 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-09-28 18:02 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-09-30 9:21 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-09-23 10:34 ` Bruce Richardson
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=e9vr0pj67s9qe6tr9a4jiulq.1475090701301@email.android.com \
--to=az5157@att.com \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=rahul.r.shah@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@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).