> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > > Hmmm. It's true it is cleaner. But I am not sure having a generic API > > > for bypass is a good idea at all. > > > I was thinking to totally remove it. > > > > Why to remove it? > > As I know there are people who use that functionality. > > > > > Maybe we can try to have a specific API by including ixgbe_bypass.h in > > > the application. > > > > Hmm, isn't that what we were trying to get rid of in last few years? > > HW specific stuff? > > Yes exactly. > I have the feeling the bypass API is specific to ixgbe. Isn't it?
As far as I know, yes. > > As we will probably see other features specific to only one device. > Instead of adding a function in the generic API, I think it may be > saner to include a driver header. But that means use has to make decision based on HW id/type of the device, the thing we were trying to get rid of in last few releases, no? > Then if it appears to be used > in more devices, it can be generalized. > What do you think of this approach? We talked few times about introducing sort of ioctl() call, to communicate about HW specific features. Might be a bypass I a good candidate to be moved into this ioctl() thing... But I suppose it's too late for 16.07 to start such big changes. If you don't like bypass API to be a generic one, my suggestion would be to leave it as it is for 16.07, and start a discussion what it should look like for 16.11. Konstantin
