Hi Ori, On 10/5/21 12:41 PM, Ori Kam wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:39 AM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta >> data >> >> Hi Ori, >> >> On 10/5/21 11:17 AM, Ori Kam wrote: >> >>> One more thing, I think this flag should be added now since you need >>> it, I think you should report that you don't support it. >>> since just like we talked there is no real difference between metadata and >>> MARK. >>> What do you think? >> >> It sounds like a trick :) Negative support is *not* a support in fact. DPDK >> policy >> requires support of a feature in a PMD and in-tree application. Of course, >> it is >> not a problem to add meta. It is really easy to do. I just don't want to add >> it in >> v5 to be deleted in v6 because of my above concerns. >> > This was not a trick. I understand what you are saying. > if we say that metadata is the same as mark, (I think we all agree on it) and > that > application need to notify pmd about such operations, I assume it will try to > see how to > request the metadata.
Frankly speaking I feel sick when I think about META and MARK together. Do we really need both in DPDK? > I'm O.K. with adding it later and in any case I promise you that if you add it > it will stay. Many thanks, I see. >> @Thomas, what do you think? >> >> Andrew. > > Ori > Andrew.
