On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 5:26 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 27/05/2020 13:43, Jerin Jacob: > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:21 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > 27/05/2020 09:31, Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:39 PM Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:59:45PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:36 PM Olivier Matz > > > > > > <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:09:37PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:54 AM Thomas Monjalon > > > > > > > > <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since dynamic fields and flags were added in 19.11, > > > > > > > > > the idea was to use them for new features, not only > > > > > > > > > PMD-specific. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rule is made more explicit in doxygen, in the mbuf guide, > > > > > > > > > and in the contribution design guidelines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For more information about the original design, see the > > > > > > > > > presentation > > > > > > > > > https://www.dpdk.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2019/10/DynamicMbuf.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > doc/guides/contributing/design.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/mbuf_lib.rst | 23 > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 2 ++ > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/design.rst > > > > > > > > > b/doc/guides/contributing/design.rst > > > > > > > > > index d3dd694b65..508115d5bd 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/contributing/design.rst > > > > > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/design.rst > > > > > > > > > +Mbuf features > > > > > > > > > +------------- > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +The ``rte_mbuf`` structure must be kept small (128 bytes). > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +In order to add new features without wasting buffer space > > > > > > > > > for unused features, > > > > > > > > > +some fields and flags can be registered dynamically in a > > > > > > > > > shared area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, instead of "can", it should be "must" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +The "dynamic" mbuf area is the default choice for the new > > > > > > > > > features. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, Thomas' proposal is correct, with the next sentence > > > > > > > saying it is the default choice for new features. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giving guidelines is a good thing (thanks Thomas for documenting > > > > > > > it), > > > > > > > but I don't think we should be too strict: the door remains open > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > technical debate and exceptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are open for the exception then it must be mention in what > > > > > > case > > > > > > the exception is allowed and what are the criteria of the exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, Why did n't we choose the following patch as > > > > > > expectation > > > > > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/68733/ even if only one bit used. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we are not not defining the criteria, IMO, This patch serve no > > > > > > purpose than > > > > > > the existing situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think, any case where the dynamic scheme can not be used as > > > > > > a replacement > > > > > > for static other than performance hit. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it is possible to anticipate all criteria in the > > > > > documentation. With Thomas' proposal, it gives a direction is and a > > > > > global view, but it must not completly replace reflection and > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > I don't think, we need to anticipate all the criteria in the > > > > documentation. > > > > At least ONE should be given as an example of an exception. > > > > > > I think it is too early to be more specific in the guidelines. > > > Do we agree this patch is a first good step in the documentation? > > > > IMO, there is a gap. The subject says the rule, but no rule here. > > We are just giving some guideline and following info in the patch > > given by Olivier is not > > expressed if we read the patch. > > > > " > > I don't think we should be too strict: the door remains open for > > technical debate and exceptions. > > " > > Indeed, the headline should be > mbuf: add guideline for new fields and flags > > > > > We can extend the guidelines a bit later after having some > > > discussions on specific cases, and probably in the techboard too. > > > > > > > > > > I would say, > > > > a) If a feature takes only one bit and its part of normative API spec > > > > and it used in fastpath we should consider the static scheme. > > > > b) Adding an exception to the existing list needs approval at least > > > > from three maintainers > > > > > > > > For me, it is a very legitimate case to have support for > > > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/68733/ to the static scheme > > > > as it takes 1 bit for a feature and it is part of the normative spec. > > > > I don't get in explanation in the ml, why > > > > we can not make it as the static scheme for this case. > > > > > > We can continue discussion about this specific case in the right thread. > > > > Yes. The email thread[1] provided all the details. We have optimized > > to one bit for this feature. > > We are expecting Olivier to comment on the new proposal. > > [1] > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/68733/ > > > > > Note: I don't have a definitive opinion on it, I need to read it > > > carefully. > > > > Please read it carefully and please provide any technical opinions if > > you have any. > > > > > > > > My worry is, if we are keeping as open-ended means, we are giving room > > > > for the disparity among the vendors/feature > > > > as I dont think, There is use case where dynamic scheme can not be > > > > used as a replacement > > > > for static other than performance hit.(Could think of any use case?) > > > > So open ended boils down to preference to specific feature/vendor. I > > > > think,that path should be avoided. > > > > > > Of course all rules and decisions have to be fair. > > > It's not even a question. > > > > Yes. But I dont think, this patch is not enforcing anything such, > > instead it makes it as an open-ended > > for more confusion. IMO, if it not black and white then better to not > > express the rule. > > I disagree about "more confusion".
My confusion will clear up if 1) s/rule/guide line/ change across the patch 2) Explicit mention of the following or similar sentence. it is a guideline and exception is allowed on a case by case using technical debate. > I think the value of this patch is to improve awareness > about the need for using dynamic fields and flags. > > Let's ask other opinions about the added value of this patch. > >
