On 6/18/2021 10:14 AM, Morten Brørup wrote: >> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, >> Konstantin >> Sent: Thursday, 17 June 2021 19.06 >> >> I think it would be better to change rx_pkt_burst() to accept port_id >> and queue_id, instead of void *. > > Current: > > typedef uint16_t (*eth_rx_burst_t)(void *rxq, > struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, > uint16_t nb_pkts); > >> I.E: >> typedef uint16_t (*eth_rx_burst_t)(uint16_t port_id, >> uint16_t queue_id, >> struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, >> uint16_t nb_pkts); >> >> And we can do actual de-referencing of private rxq data inside the >> actual rx function. > > Good idea, if it can be done without a performance cost. > > The X64 calling convention allows up to 4 parameters passed as registers, so > the added parameter should not be a problem. > > > Another thing: > > I just noticed that struct rte_eth_dev_data has "void **rx_queues;" (and > similarly for tx_queues). > > That should be "void *rx_queues[RTE_MAX_QUEUES_PER_PORT];", like in all the > other ethdev structures. >
Why have a fixed size rx_queues array? It is already allocated dynamically in 'rte_eth_dev_configure()' based on actual Rx/Tx queue number. We are already trying to get rid of compile time fixed array sizes, so I think better to keep it as it is. Also this will increase the strcut size. > The same structure even has "uint8_t > rx_queue_state[RTE_MAX_QUEUES_PER_PORT];", so it's following two different > conventions. > I wonder if we should should switch these to dynamic allocation too.
