On 10/5/21 9:30 AM, Ori Kam wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> >> Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:53 PM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta >> data >> >> On 10/4/21 2:39 PM, Ivan Malov wrote: >>> On 04/10/2021 09:56, Ori Kam wrote: >>>>> On 04/10/2021 00:04, Ori Kam wrote: >>>>>> I understand that you are only talking about enabling the action, >>>>>> meaning to let the PMD know that at some point there will be a rule >>>>>> that will use the mark action for example. >>>>>> Is my understanding correct? >>>>> Not really. The causal relationships are as follows. The application >>>>> comes to realise that it will need to use, say, action MARK in >>>>> flows. >>>>> This, in turn, means that, in order to be able to actually see the >>>>> mark in received packets, the application needs to ensure that a) >>>>> the NIC will be able to deliver the mark to the PMD and b) that the >>>>> PMD will be able to deliver the mark to the application. In >>>>> particular, in the case of Rx mark, >>>>> (b) doesn't >>>>> need to be negotiated = field "mark" is anyway provisioned in the >>>>> mbuf structure, so no need to enable it. But (a) needs to be negotiated. >>>>> Hence this >>>>> API. >>>>> >>>> Please see my above comment I think we both agree. >>> Agree to have the 4-th flag in the new API to cover this "custom / raw >>> metdata" delivery? Personally, I tend to agree, but maybe Andrew can >>> express his opinion, too. >> Of course, it could be added, but we're not going to support it in net/sfc. >> So, I >> think the flag should be added when a PMD will going to support it (e.g. >> net/mlx5). > I think it should be added now, and more I think that this patch should add > the missing function > to all PMDs 😊
Sorry, but I disagree. Could you point out to DPDK documentation where it is written? Should all new API be supported in all PMDs by the API contributor? Andrew.
