Hi, Evening update: - addressed code comments - provided the union of segmentation description with dedicated feature structures according Jerin's proposal - added the reporting of split limitation
With best regards, Slava > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 16:07 > To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; Slava > Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > <arybche...@solarflare.com> > Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org>; Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; > Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; David Marchand > <david.march...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split > > 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.
