On 10/31/19 7:38 PM, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote: >> 29/10/2019 16:37, pbhagavat...@marvell.com: >>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> >>> Removed Items >>> ------------- >>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >>> +/** >>> + * @warning >>> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice. >>> + * >>> + * Inform Ethernet device of the packet types classification the >> recipient is >>> + * interested in. >> This is a bit convoluted. >> What about this? >> "Optimize driver handling of packet types by reducing its range." > @arybche...@solarflare.com Thoughts?
Optimize is a possible side effect of the operation, but there is no any promise that something will be optimized. I thought that current description explains what happens. Below statements try to explain why it may be useful. Any other options? >>> + * >>> + * Application can use this function to set only specific ptypes that it's >>> + * interested. This information can be used by the PMD to optimize >> Rx path. >>> + * >>> + * The function accepts an array `set_ptypes` allocated by the caller >> to >>> + * store the packet types set by the driver, the last element of the >> array >>> + * is set to RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN. The size of the `set_ptype` array >> should be >>> + * `rte_eth_dev_get_supported_ptypes() + 1` else it might only be >> filled >>> + * partially. >>> + * >>> + * @param port_id >>> + * The port identifier of the Ethernet device. >>> + * @param ptype_mask >>> + * The ptype family that application is interested in should be >> bitwise OR of >>> + * RTE_PTYPE_*_MASK or 0. >>> + * @param set_ptypes >>> + * An array pointer to store set packet types, allocated by caller. The >>> + * function marks the end of array with RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN. >>> + * @param num >>> + * Size of the array pointed by param ptypes. >>> + * Should be rte_eth_dev_get_supported_ptypes() + 1 to >> accommodate the >>> + * set ptypes. >>> + * @return >>> + * - (0) if Success. >>> + * - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* invalid. >>> + * - (-EINVAL) if *ptype_mask* is invalid (or) set_ptypes is NULL and >>> + * num > 0. >>> + */ >> John, please you check the English wording? >> >>> +__rte_experimental >>> +int rte_eth_dev_set_supported_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t >> ptype_mask, >>> + uint32_t *set_ptypes, unsigned int >> num); >> >> I don't like the name of the function because they are >> not "supported" packet types but "requested". >> What about replacing "set_supported" with "set_allowed", or >> "white_list"? > "white_list" seems ok but hope it doesn't call for blacklisting API. "white_list" suggests that it is guaranteed that nothing else will be reported. At least for me. However, I agree that set_supported is not nice and I accepted it just to keep API naming symmetric. May be it is really misleading here. May be just: rte_eth_dev_set_ptypes()?
