> rte_eth_X_get_capability() > rte_eth_dev_stashing_hints_discover is somewhat similar.
> Instead of adding RTE_ETH_DEV_CAPA_ macro and contaminating > 'rte_eth_dev_info' with this edge use case, what do you think follow above > design and have dedicated get capability API? I think it's better to have a dedicated API, given that we already have a fine grained capabilities discovery function. I will add this feedback to V3 of the RFC. > > And I can see set() has two different APIs, 'rte_eth_dev_stashing_hints_rx' & > 'rte_eth_dev_stashing_hints_tx', is there a reason to have two separate APIs > instead of having one which gets RX & TX as argument, as done in internal > device ops? Some types/hints may only apply to a single queue direction, so I thought it would be better to separate them out into separate Rx and Tx APIs for ease of comprehension/use for the developer. In fact, underneath, it uses one API for both Rx and Tx.
