Hi > -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 18:24 > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > Cc: Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:02 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> > > Cc: Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > > > 2016-10-27 15:52, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > > > > > This is a major new function in the API and I still have some > comments. > > > > > > > > 2016-10-26 14:56, Tomasz Kulasek: > > > > > --- a/config/common_base > > > > > +++ b/config/common_base > > > > > +CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP=y > > > > > > > > We cannot enable it until it is implemented in every drivers. > > > > > > Not sure why? > > > If tx_pkt_prep == NULL, then rte_eth_tx_prep() would just act as noop. > > > Right now it is not mandatory for the PMD to implement it. > > > > If it is not implemented, the application must do the preparation by > itself. > > From patch 6: > > " > > Removed pseudo header calculation for udp/tcp/tso packets from > > application and used Tx preparation API for packet preparation and > > verification. > > " > > So how does it behave with other drivers? > > Hmm so it seems that we broke testpmd csumonly mode for non-intel > drivers.. > My bad, missed that part completely. > Yes, then I suppose for now we'll need to support both (with and without) > code paths for testpmd. > Probably a new fwd mode or just extra parameter for the existing one? > Any other suggestions? >
I had sent txprep engine in v2 (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15775/), but I'm opened on the suggestions. If you like it I can resent it in place of csumonly modification. Tomasz > > > > > > > struct rte_eth_dev { > > > > > eth_rx_burst_t rx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD receive > function. */ > > > > > eth_tx_burst_t tx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit > > > > > function. */ > > > > > + eth_tx_prep_t tx_pkt_prep; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit > > > > > +prepare function. */ > > > > > struct rte_eth_dev_data *data; /**< Pointer to device data */ > > > > > const struct eth_driver *driver;/**< Driver for this device */ > > > > > const struct eth_dev_ops *dev_ops; /**< Functions exported by > > > > > PMD */ > > > > > > > > Could you confirm why tx_pkt_prep is not in dev_ops? > > > > I guess we want to have several implementations? > > > > > > Yes, it depends on configuration options, same as tx_pkt_burst. > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we have a const struct control_dev_ops and a struct > datapath_dev_ops? > > > > > > That's probably a good idea, but I suppose it is out of scope for that > patch. > > > > No it's not out of scope. > > It answers to the question "why is it added in this structure and not > dev_ops". > > We won't do this change when nothing else is changed in the struct. > > Not sure I understood you here: > Are you saying datapath_dev_ops/controlpath_dev_ops have to be introduced > as part of that patch? > But that's a lot of changes all over rte_ethdev.[h,c]. > It definitely worse a separate patch (might be some discussion) for me. > Konstantin > >
