On 6/22/2018 8:15 AM, Ido Goshen wrote:
>
>
>> -----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
Right, we can't avoid.
This change is removing a limitation in the PMD but with a side effect, I missed
side effect part.
I am for rejecting the patch until this feature explicitly requested for a
practical usecase, to be sure we are not introducing the side effect a feature
that is not really needed.
Thanks for your effort.
