On 7/14/22 16:25, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
14/07/2022 14:54, Ding, Xuan:
Hi,
From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
14/07/2022 07:50, Ding, Xuan:
From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
23/05/2022 16:20, xuan.d...@intel.com:
From: Xuan Ding <xuan.d...@intel.com>
RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT offload was introduced some
time
ago
to substitute bit-field header_split in struct rte_eth_rxmode. It
allows to enable header split offload with the header size
controlled using split_hdr_size in the same structure.
Right now, no single PMD actually supports
RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT with above definition. Many
examples and test apps initialize the field to 0 explicitly. The
most of drivers simply ignore split_hdr_size since the offload is
not advertised, but
some double-check that its value is 0.
So the RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT and split_header_size
field
will be removed in DPDK 22.11.
Signed-off-by: Xuan Ding <xuan.d...@intel.com>
---
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
index 4e5b23c53d..b8114f29ed 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
@@ -125,3 +125,7 @@ Deprecation Notices
applications should be updated to use the ``dmadev`` library instead,
with the underlying HW-functionality being provided by the ``ioat`` or
``idxd`` dma drivers
+
+* ethdev: After bit-field header split was removed, the
+``RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT``
+offload and the ``split_hdr_size`` field in structure
+``rte_eth_rxmode`` to enable header split offload are not
+supported in any
PMDs. They will be removed in DPDK 22.11.
It would have been good to talk about rte_eth_rxseg_split which is
similar and configured per-queue.
Thanks for your suggestion.
But I'm a little confused, are you referring that I need to involve protocol
based buffer split?
About the deprecation of header split, I haven't realized its connection to
rte_eth_rxseg_split.
What???
In old versions of your patch "ethdev: introduce protocol type based header
split"
you wrote:
"
A new proto field is introduced in the
rte_eth_rxseg_split structure reserved field to specify header protocol type.
With Rx offload flag RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT enabled and
protocol type configured, PMD will split the ingress packets into two separate
regions.
"
It has a long history...
It was corrected in v4 that RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT is used to enable
header
split offload with the header size controlled using "split_hdr_size".
But no single PMD actually supports RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT for this
purpose.
So we finally decide to deprecate this flag.
http://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220402104109.472078-2-wenxuanx...@intel.com/
In following series, I use RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT instead. It is for
multi-segments packet
split. And it still needs a "proto_hdr" field in rte_eth_rxmode to configure
split location.
I know this history because I was the one asking you to deprecate this.
But it seems you didn't get the big picture.
Currently there are 2 acks, add more PMD maintainers to help review
this deprecation notice for header split, thanks a lot!
I cannot say my feeling strong enough.
So IMO the deprecation for header split is not relevant with buffer split. But
we can still clean the code.
Hope it make things clearer.
They are almost the same features.
So when deprecating one, it is important to mention what remains.
If needed RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT can still be used
and it is configured per-queue,
while RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT was configurable per-port.
Andrew, Ferruh, do you agree to improve this deprecation notice
by adding above information?
+1 tt is definitely a very good idea.
