>
> Hi Thomasz,
>
> >
> > 2016-10-27 16:24, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Please think how we can use it in every applications.
> > It is not ready.
> > Either we introduce the API without enabling it, or we implement it
> > in every drivers.
>
> I understand your position here, but just like to point that:
> 1) It is a new functionality optional to use.
> The app is free not to use that functionality and still do the
> preparation itself
> (as it has to do it now).
> All existing apps would keep working as expected without using that
> function.
> Though if the app developer knows that for all HW models he plans to run
> on
> tx_prep is implemented - he is free to use it.
> 2) It would be difficult for Tomasz (and other Intel guys) to implement
> tx_prep()
> for all non-Intel HW that DPDK supports right now.
> We just don't have all the actual HW in stock and probably adequate
> knowledge of it.
> So we depend here on the good will of other PMD mainaners/developers to
> implement
> tx_prep() for these devices.
> From other side, if it will be disabled by default, then, I think,
> PMD developers just wouldn't be motivated to implement it.
> So it will be left untested and unused forever.
Actually as another thought:
Can we have it enabled by default, but mark it as experimental or so?
If memory serves me right, we've done that for cryptodev in the past, no?
Konstantin
>
> >
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Yes it could be a separate patch in the same patchset.
>
> Honestly, I think it is a good idea, but it is too late and too risky to do
> such change right now.
> We are on RC2 right now, just few days before RC3...
> Can't that wait till 17.02?
> From my understanding - it is pure code restructuring, without any
> functionality affected.
> Konstantin
>
