On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:31:43 +0000 Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> wrote:
> >-----Original Message----- > >From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > >Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:30 PM > >To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; Jerin > >Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; John McNamara > ><john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Marko Kovacevic > ><marko.kovace...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > ><tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >Cc: dev@dpdk.org > >Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 1/3] ethdev: add ptype as an Rx > >offload > > > >External Email > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >On 8/6/19 11:02 AM, pbhagavat...@marvell.com wrote: > >> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > >> > >> Add ptype to DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_* flags which can be used to > >enable/disable > >> packet type parsing. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > > >I like the idea. I think there are few more Rx features which > >lack Rx offload bit: > > - delivery of RSS hash in mbuf (it is not always required when > > RSS is used to distribute packets across Rx queues) > > Especially when applications use custom hash functions to store flows. > > > - maybe Rx mark, since it is an extra information which could > > be passed by NIC to CPU and it is better to know in advance > > at Rx queue setup if it should be requested and processed > > Are you referring to RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK? > > > > >API breakage should be considered here. I think it is OK to > >introduce it in the next release cycle in a dummy way which > >does not affect packet type delivery for existing PMDs > >(i.e. add offload capability and advertise in PMD, but do not > >take it into account when Rx mbuf is filled in) and > >submit deprecation notice that it may be taken into account > >by PMDs in 20.02 to avoid packet type delivery if the offload > >is not requested. It will allow applications to make transition > >smoother. > > Couldn’t agree with you more. I could extend the current RFC to include > RSS and RX mark as we would be modifying the same offload fields across > all drivers. Easier for PMD maintainers too. > > > > >Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > I would rather the ptype offload be always on and handled in software for drivers that don't do it.
