On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:52:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-07-28 19:29, Jerin Jacob: > > Above things worries me, I wouldn't have cared if the changes are not comes > > in fastpath and I don't think this sort of issues will never get fixed any > > time > > soon in this community. > > > > So I given up. > > I feel something goes wrong here but I cannot understand your sentence. > Please could you reword/explain Jerin?
I guess you have removed the context from the email. Never mind. 1) IMHO, Introducing a new fast path API which has "performance impact" on existing other PMD should get the consensus from the other PMD maintainers. At least, bare minimum, send a patch much in advance with the implementation of ethdev API as well as PMD driver implementation to get feedback from other developers _before_ ABI change announcement rather just debating on hypothetical points. 2) What I can understand from the discussion is that it is the workaround for an HW limitation. At this point, I am not sure tx_prep is the only way to address it and do other PMD have similar restriction?. If yes, Can we have abstract it in a proper way the usage part will be very clear from PMD and application perspective? Jerin
