On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:58:08 -0800 Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 01:25:10PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:10:18 -0800 > > Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:32:55AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev, rte_eth_dev_data, rte_eth_rxtx_callback are internal > > > > data structures that were used by public inline ethdev functions. > > > > Well behaving app should not access these data structures directly. > > > > So, for well behaving app there should no changes in the code required. > > > > That what I meant by 'transparent' above. > > > > But it is still an ABI change, so yes, the app has to be re-compiled. > > > > > > > > > > so it appears the application was establishing a private context / > > > vendor extension between the application and a pmd. the application > > > was abusing access to the rte_eth_devices[] to get the private context > > > from the rte_eth_dev. > > > > > > is there a proper / supported way of providing this functionality > > > through the public api? > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > Keep a array in application? Portid is universally > > available. > > > > struct my_portdata *my_ports[RTE_ETH_MAXPORTS]; > > i guess by this you mean maintain the storage in the application and > then export that storage for proprietary use in the pmd. ordinarily i > wouldn't want to have this hard-coded into the modules abi but since > we are talking about vendor extensions it has to be managed somewhere. > > anyway, i guess i have my answer. > > thanks stephen, appreciate it. Don't understand, how are application and pmd exchanging extra data? Maybe a non-standard PMD API?
