On 10/15/20 3:49 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 15/10/2020 13:49, Slava Ovsiienko: >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>> On 10/15/2020 12:26 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>>>>>> If we see some of the features of such kind or other PMDs adopts >>>>>>>> the split feature - we'll try to find the common root and consider >>>>>>>> the way how >>>>>> to report it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My only concern with that approach will be ABI break again if >>>>>>> something needs to exposed over rte_eth_dev_info(). >>>>> >>>>> Let's reserve the pointer to struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations in the >>>>> rte_eth_dev_info to avoid ABI break? >>>> >>>> Works for me. If we add an additional reserved field. >>>> >>>> Due to RC1 time constraint, I am OK to leave it as a reserved filed >>>> and fill meat when it is required if other ethdev maintainers are OK. >>>> I will be required for feature complete. >>>> >>> >>> Sounds good to me. > > OK for me.
OK as well, but I dislike the idea with pointer in dev_info. It sounds like it breaks existing practice. We should either reserve enough space or simply add dedicated API call to report Rx seg capabilities. > >> OK, let's introduce the pointer in the rte_eth_dev_info and >> define struct rte_eth_rxseg_limitations as experimental. >> Will it be allowed to update this one later (after 20.11)? >> Is ABI break is allowed for the case? > > If it is experimental, you can change it at anytime. > > Ideally, we could try to have a first version of the limitations > during 20.11-rc2. Yes, please.
