Hi Jerin,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 3:15 PM
> To: Naga Harish K, S V <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com>
> Cc: jer...@marvell.com; Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>; Gujjar,
> Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] eventdev/eth_rx: add params set/get APIs
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 9:42 PM Naga Harish K, S V
> <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jerin,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:13 PM
> > > To: Naga Harish K, S V <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: jer...@marvell.com; Carrillo, Erik G
> > > <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Jayatheerthan, Jay
> > > <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] eventdev/eth_rx: add params set/get APIs
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:26 PM Naga Harish K, S V
> > > <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 4:24 PM
> > > > > To: Naga Harish K, S V <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: jer...@marvell.com; Carrillo, Erik G
> > > > > <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> > > > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Jayatheerthan, Jay
> > > > > <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] eventdev/eth_rx: add params set/get
> > > > > APIs
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:02 PM Naga Harish K, S V
> > > > > <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > > > > + uint32_t rsvd[15];
> > > > > > > > > > > > + /**< Reserved fields for future use */
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Introduce
> > > > > > > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init()
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > sure rsvd is zero.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The reserved fields are not used by the adapter or
> application.
> > > > > > > > > > Not sure Is it necessary to Introduce a new API to
> > > > > > > > > > clear reserved
> > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When adapter starts using new fileds(when we add new
> > > > > > > > > fieds in future), the old applicaiton which is not using
> > > > > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() may have
> > > junk
> > > > > > > > > value and then adapter implementation will behave bad.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > does it mean, the application doesn't re-compile for the new
> DPDK?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes. No need recompile if ABI not breaking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When some of the reserved fields are used in the future,
> > > > > > > > the application
> > > > > > > also may need to be recompiled along with DPDK right?
> > > > > > > > As the application also may need to use the newly consumed
> > > > > > > > reserved
> > > > > > > fields?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problematic case is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adapter implementation of 23.07(Assuming there is change
> > > > > > > params) field needs to work with application of 23.03.
> > > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() will sove that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() initializes
> > > > > > only
> > > > > reserved fields to zero, it may not solve the issue in this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() needs to zero all
> > > > > fields, not just reserved field.
> > > > > The application calling sequence is
> > > > >
> > > > > struct my_config c;
> > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init(&c)
> > > > > c.interseted_filed_to_be_updated = val;
> > > > >
> > > > Can it be done like
> > > > struct my_config c = {0};
> > > > c.interseted_filed_to_be_updated = val; and update Doxygen
> > > > comments to recommend above usage to reset all fields?
> > > > This way, rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() can be
> > > avoided.
> > >
> > > Better to have a function for documentation clarity. Similar scheme
> > > already there in DPDK. See rte_eth_cman_config_init()
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > The reference function rte_eth_cman_config_init() is resetting the params
> struct and initializing the required params with default values in the pmd cb.
>
> No need for PMD cb.
>
> > The proposed rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init () API just
> needs to reset the params struct. There are no pmd CBs involved.
> > Having an API just to reset the struct seems overkill. What do you think?
>
> It is slow path API. Keeping it as function is better. Also, it helps the
> documentations of config parm in
> rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_config()
> like, This structure must be initialized with
> rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() or so.
>
>
Are there any other reasons to have this API (*params_init()) other than
documentation?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Let me share an example and you can tell where is the issue
> > > > >
> > > > > 1)Assume parameter structure is 64B and for 22.03 8B are used.
> > > > > 2)rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init() will clear all 64B.
> > > > > 3)There is an application written based on 22.03 which using
> > > > > only 8B after calling
> > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init()
> > > > > 4)Assume, in 22.07 another 8B added to structure.
> > > > > 5)Now, the application (3) needs to run on 22.07. Since the
> > > > > application is calling
> > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_runtime_params_init()
> > > > > and 9 to 15B are zero, the implementation will not go bad.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The old application only tries to set/get previous valid
> > > > > > fields and the newly
> > > > > used fields may still contain junk value.
> > > > > > If the application wants to make use of any the newly used
> > > > > > params, the
> > > > > application changes are required anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. If application wants to make use of newly added features.
> > > > > No need to change if new features are not needed for old application.
