2015-07-24 09:15, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > 2015-07-22 19:28, Konstantin Ananyev: > > > +struct rte_eth_rxq_info { > > > + struct rte_mempool *mp; /**< mempool used by that queue. */ > > > + struct rte_eth_rxconf conf; /**< queue config parameters. */ > > > + uint8_t scattered_rx; /**< scattered packets RX supported. */ > > > + uint16_t nb_desc; /**< configured number of RXDs. */ > > > > Shouldn't we move nb_desc in rte_eth_rxconf? > > So rte_eth_rx_queue_setup() would have less parameters. > > I thought about that too, but it seems more drawbacks then pluses with that > idea: > 1. Right now it is possible to call rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(..., rx_conf=NULL, > ...); > In that case rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()will use default for that device rx_conf. > If we'll move mempool into rxconf, will break that ability. > 2. A bit unclear what mempool should be returned as default_rxconf by > rte_eth_dev_info_get(). > Should it be just NULL.
I was only suggesting to move nb_desc, not mempool. In case rx_conf==NULL, the nb_desc should be the max allowed by the driver. By the way, we should allow nb_desc==0 as it is done in virtio. Users shouldn't have to care about queue parameters (including nb_desc) for a basic usage. > 3. ABI breakage and we (and all customers) will need to modify each and > every RX setup/configure code. > > For me it just seems like too much hassle, without any clear advanatage. The advantage is to have a cleaner API. Seems important to me.
