From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (mail-oi0-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951392C49 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 04:15:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 62so30370883oih.2 for ; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:15:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fh1rJjlequsdUBFTt2MVIElsRpo5Ao/FGFRMckS0I9c=; b=IkXm3vN0b4czZ20DkDtbLXBHRfkk2HbNHLwnlXNPOennNyn+uhIbc5GrPWy8V2umHT UKi9Und3H8i1i0ljN+wY6Sol0stQSKP2JZkBlae5EwiOEv3ia7p5ZJcQJxY4zGlRtUq1 NMqnip7aZ5vOnhpxysdtAGP4mA+rI7tA4xYFkMtCm7x4bGT5SNjS9f0WUeon0ibGLhn4 I7sLyziMwDkutuZlNqQeRfniJpwZzkXv/97eLOg0DL7XHYgnWqxIMFwktqVRwrunsX5+ 92ntbehmxyab8otr5QEo743guhWz1vYA721ML13xcoUajYuS0c+gyI6onCgsEzYYcdRq bfVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fh1rJjlequsdUBFTt2MVIElsRpo5Ao/FGFRMckS0I9c=; b=IgaHAf64WF4VzsL8rrTFKJodl++qKh4+BYjtVpBGhbHVc7tD46eztD44kS31njr1rS fCL1qRrS7aoFfyn2YKH8mLeVH39TxXauy9jhFwE9+ErjbBYfqvXlGd1P23C8ceVXqOa3 AunPWi4szc4vcXodDmQDOgESA8EyM5gkOPjWseZ5vg/NCyEjDju9NFZvfsRvungVY/I6 FWLsQ62HfKAUF6xOjDIOc7NAhfxlTFbGk0+vQSLucVi23Q5q00q/cBmWNhcF8AIuTL7n 5dv9s/RLNB3xx2gZz274xGzcilgPEljTY//6v/nREpe9lcAakYTCHRn6iWyTFB0osqb3 mBSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kRuoJyM+i5vuRWRNjWRGpReLuUN6am2N5C8BchvJUeHYFfVi8ZSeMS72BU0QprgCEsw41GA2sfoJKcGg== X-Received: by 10.202.85.193 with SMTP id j184mr5198469oib.199.1489029312734; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:15:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.251.129 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 19:15:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <629169D5-EAC6-425D-A126-9ECB85F7EE21@intel.com> References: <629169D5-EAC6-425D-A126-9ECB85F7EE21@intel.com> From: raman geetha gopalakrishnan Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:45:12 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Wiles, Keith" Cc: users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Reg DPDK & PMD X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:15:13 -0000 Hi Keith, Thanks for providing a detail answer. As i understood for the application to have the same interface ethdev exposes a common API which gets implemented by each PMD specifically based on the NIC it supports. My basic assumption of all NIC having some common operating procedure is not correct. Thanks for your time. Thanks Raman On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 7:29 AM, raman geetha gopalakrishnan < > glowingsun@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I have just rephrased by last question to understand > > 1. *what is preventing us from having a common PMD layer for all NICs a= nd > > additional PMD specific to each NIC???* > > We do have a common layer it is called the ethdev layer. The ethdev layer > provides a common and generic API=E2=80=99s for the application to use an= d requires > PMDs to register a set of function pointers to ethdev. These function > pointers are common and generic to all of the PMDs. As for the PMDs it is > impossible to have a cleaner solution unless every NIC is programmed in t= he > same why. The two layer device model is used in just about all OS types > like Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, =E2=80=A6 as this appears to be the best so= lution > until you can get every vendor in the world to pick a single hardware > interface. > > > > > Thanks > > Raman > > Regards, > Keith > >