> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:27 PM > To: Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.wang at intel.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] testpmd: add io_retry forwarding > > 2016-05-26 02:40, Wang, Zhihong: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > 2016-05-05 18:46, Zhihong Wang: > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h > > > > extern struct fwd_engine io_fwd_engine; > > > > +extern struct fwd_engine io_retry_fwd_engine; > > > > extern struct fwd_engine mac_fwd_engine; > > > > extern struct fwd_engine mac_retry_fwd_engine; > > > > extern struct fwd_engine mac_swap_engine; > > > > > > We now have 2 engines with "retry" behaviour. > > > It is maybe the way to go, but I want to ask the question: > > > Would it be possible to have "retry" as an engine parameter? > > > > > > > If it's just about the way to write commands there isn't much difference, > > like "set fwd io_rety" and "set fwd io retry". > > > > Do you mean to add the "retry" for all engines, and also implement this > > as a parameter in each original engine? So for example, no iofwd-retry.c, > > just add this feature inside iofwd.c? > > Yes, if it makes sense. For engines other than io_fwd and mac_fwd, the retry > option can be unsupported (return an error) as a first step.
I think it makes sense in terms of making code more clear and manageable.
