2016-09-28 16:52, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > 2016-09-28 14:30, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > 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? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yep, you read my mind correctly :) > > > > Both could coexist (if ioctl was accepted by community). > > True. > > > What about starting to implement the PMD functions and postpone ioctl to > > later with a dedicated thread? > > You mean something like: > - 16.11: implement rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping() > - 17.02: > a) implement rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping() > b) introduce ioctl PMD API > c) make possible to vf_ping via ioctl API > ? > If so, then it sounds like reasonable approach to me. > Though would be inserting to hear what other guys think.
Yes. I would just add that we have to start a discussion thread to decide wether we'll add an ioctl call in 17.02 or not.
