02/11/2019 07:55, Liu, Yu Y: > Add Damjan from FD.io for awareness... > > Hi Thomas, > > Long time no see. Sorry I use outlook which is not friendly to community > email. > > >Anyway I will propose to replace this API in the next release. > Will your plan be affected by API/ABI stable plan?
The API is experimental, so it can be changed later. > BTW, if you propose new change in next release, it will make DPDK > consumer(FD.io) to change again. Yes I agree it is not nice. > So even if it is not affected to the API/ABI stable plan, do we still have > time to get a solution for everyone in DPDK 19.11 with your > contribution/acceleration? Yes we have time. But you insist on an API without any good justification. > > I suspect a real hidden issue in Intel CPUs that you try to mitigate. > Please be rest assured it is not the case. > This request is just from one FD.io project internal bug " tx/rx burst > function is shown as nil" reported by Chenmin. > My understanding is DPDK behavior was taken as bug for someone in FD.io > project and potentially will mislead other DPDK consumer. > Haiyue is working with Chenmin to address the issue and with your support it > will be even better. > > Your support will be highly appreciated! I already said what I consider to be good: a simple string. Of course I may be wrong, that's why I asked questions. But half of the questions are just ignored. If you want to progress, please reply to the questions asked by Slava in this thread. > -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Wang, Haiyue > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > Thank you for trying to address comments done late. > > > > 31/10/2019 18:11, Haiyue Wang: > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > > > > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_ALTIVEC (1ULL << 2) > > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_NEON (1ULL << 3) > > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_SSE (1ULL << 4) > > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_AVX2 (1ULL << 5) > > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_AVX512 (1ULL << 6) > > > > Of course, I still believe that giving a special treatment to vector > > instructions is wrong. > > You did not justify why it needs to be defined in bits instead of > > string. I am not asking again because anyway you don't really reply. I > > think you are executing an order you received and I don't want to > > blame you more. > > I suspect a real hidden issue in Intel CPUs that you try to mitigate. > > No need to reply to this comment. > > Anyway I will propose to replace this API in the next release. > > Never mind, if this design is truly ugly, drop it all now. I also prefer to > do the best, that's why open source is amazing, thanks! ;-)
