2016-09-28 13:26, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2016-09-28 11:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > If we this way (force user to include driver specific headers and
> > > call driver specific functions), how you guys plan to make this
> > > functionality available for multiple driver types.
> >
> > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features.
> > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs.
> >
> > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would need
> > > similar functionality for i40e.
> > > Does it mean that they'll have to re-implement this part of their code
> > > again?
> > > Or would have to create (and maintain) their own shim layer that would
> > > provide some s of abstraction?
> > > Basically their own version of rte_ethdev?
> >
> > No definitive answer.
> > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which is
> > implemented only in 1 or 2 drivers? If the application tries to use
> > it, we can imagine that a specific range of hardware is expected.
>
> Yes, as I understand, it is a specific subset of supported HW (just Inel NICs
> for now, but different models/drivers).
> Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all HW from
> this subset without rebuilding/implementing the app.
>
> >
> > I think it is an important question.
> > Previously we had the issue of having some API which are too specific and
> > need a rework to be used with other NICs. In order to avoid
> > such rework and API break, we can try to make them available in a
> > driver-specific or vendor-specific staging area, waiting for a later
> > generalization.
>
> Could you remind me why you guys were that opposed to ioctl style approach?
> It is not my favorite thing either, but it seems pretty generic way to handle
> such situations.
We prefer having well-defined functions instead of opaque ioctl-style encoding.
And it was not clear what is the benefit of ioctl.
Now I think I understand you would like to have a common ioctl service for
features available on 2 drivers. Right? Example (trying to read your mind):
rte_ethdev_ioctl(port_id, <TLV encoding VF_PING service and VF id>);
instead of
rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id);
rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id);
Please confirm I understand what you are thinking about.
