> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:51 PM
> To: Ido Goshen <i...@cgstowernetworks.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/pcap: support pcap files and ifaces mix
>
> On 6/21/2018 1:24 PM, ido goshen wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: ido goshen <i...@cgstowernetworks.com>
>
> <...>
>
> > +static uint16_t
> > +eth_pcap_tx_mux(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t
> > +nb_pkts) {
> > + struct pcap_tx_queue *tx_queue = queue;
> > + if (tx_queue->dumper)
> > + return eth_pcap_tx_dumper(queue, bufs, nb_pkts);
> > + else
> > + return eth_pcap_tx(queue, bufs, nb_pkts); }
> > +
> > /*
> > * pcap_open_live wrapper function
> > */
> > @@ -773,6 +783,31 @@ struct pmd_devargs {
> > return open_iface(key, value, extra_args); }
> >
> > +static int
> > +open_pcap_rx_mux(const char *key, const char *value, void
> > +*extra_args) {
> > + struct pmd_devargs *pcaps = extra_args;
>
> Do we need this assignment? Why not pass extra_args directly?
[idog] Correct, it can be passed directly
other option is to leave the assignment here and pass strong type to the
internal open_rx_pcap/iface
instead of passing it as void*
Any preference?
>
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_RX_PCAP_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_rx_pcap(key, value, pcaps);
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_RX_IFACE_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_rx_iface(key, value, pcaps);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +open_pcap_tx_mux(const char *key, const char *value, void
> > +*extra_args) {
> > + struct pmd_devargs *dumpers = extra_args;
>
> Do we need this assignment? Why not pass extra_args directly?
>
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_TX_PCAP_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_tx_pcap(key, value, dumpers);
> > + if (strcmp(key, ETH_PCAP_TX_IFACE_ARG) == 0)
> > + return open_tx_iface(key, value, dumpers);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > static struct rte_vdev_driver pmd_pcap_drv;
> >
> > static int
> > @@ -873,8 +908,7 @@ struct pmd_devargs { eth_from_pcaps(struct
> > rte_vdev_device *vdev,
> > struct pmd_devargs *rx_queues, const unsigned int
> nb_rx_queues,
> > struct pmd_devargs *tx_queues, const unsigned int
> nb_tx_queues,
> > - struct rte_kvargs *kvlist, int single_iface,
> > - unsigned int using_dumpers)
> > + struct rte_kvargs *kvlist, int single_iface)
> > {
> > struct pmd_internals *internals = NULL;
> > struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
> > @@ -891,10 +925,7 @@ struct pmd_devargs {
> >
> > eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_rx;
> >
> > - if (using_dumpers)
> > - eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_tx_dumper;
> > - else
> > - eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_tx;
> > + eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = eth_pcap_tx_mux;
>
> We shouldn't introduce an extra check in data path. Instead of checking "if
> (tx_queue->dumper)" for _each_ packet, we should check it here once and
> assign proper burst function.
[idog] I don't see how it can be avoided
rte_eth_dev has only single tx_pkt_burst
but now we suggest to support 2 different queue types in a single device
each type requires different end functionality pcap_dump or pcap_sendpkt
btw - it's only once per burst
