On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:21:08PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Twei,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bie, Tiwei
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 7:22 AM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>;
> > Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>;
> > olivier.m...@6wind.com; thomas.monja...@6wind.com; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin
> > <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W
> > <xiao.w.w...@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for PMD-specific
> > API
> >
> > Reserve a Tx capability flag and a Rx capability flag, that can be
> > used by PMD to define its own capability flags when implementing the
> > PMD-specific API.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei....@intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > index d465825..8800b39 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > @@ -857,6 +857,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
> > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO 0x00000010
> > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_QINQ_STRIP 0x00000020
> > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM 0x00000040
> > +#define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 0x00000080 /**< Used for PMD-specific
> > API. */
> >
> > /**
> > * TX offload capabilities of a device.
> > @@ -874,6 +875,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
> > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GRE_TNL_TSO 0x00000400 /**< Used for
> > tunneling packet. */
> > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPIP_TNL_TSO 0x00000800 /**< Used for
> > tunneling packet. */
> > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GENEVE_TNL_TSO 0x00001000 /**< Used for
> > tunneling packet. */
> > +#define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 0x00002000 /**< Used for PMD-specific
> > API. */
> >
> > /**
> > * Ethernet device information
> > --
> > 2.7.4
>
> I am not sure how that supposed to work and how user should know that
> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
> is actually a MACSEC for ixgbe?
Users are not supposed to use DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0, instead, they
should use the capabilities and the likes defined in rte_pmd_ixgbe.h
where the PMD-specifics APIs are declared:
/**
* If these flags are advertised by the PMD, the NIC supports the MACsec
* offload. The incoming MACsec traffics can be offloaded transparently
* after the MACsec offload is configured correctly by the application.
* And the application can set the PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC flag in mbufs to
* enable the MACsec offload for the packets to be transmitted.
*/
#define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IXGBE_MACSEC_STRIP DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
#define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IXGBE_MACSEC_INSERT DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
/**
* This event will occur when the PN counter in a MACsec connection
* reach the exhaustion threshold.
*/
#define RTE_ETH_EVENT_IXGBE_MACSEC RTE_ETH_EVENT_RESERVED_0
/**
* Offload the MACsec. This flag must be set by the application in mbuf
* to enable this offload feature for a packet to be transmitted.
*/
#define PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC PKT_TX_RESERVED_0
PMD-specific APIs can only be used on the corresponding driver/device,
so different PMD can share the same reserved bit to represent different
things when implementing their own PMD-specific APIs.
> Another question what to do if you would like to create a bonded device over
> two devices with different NIC types?
> As I understand you can end up in situation when DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
> would mean different capabilities.
> Why not to have this MACSEC capability and ol_flag value as generic ones, as
> you have them in previous versions of your patch?
Those flags are only used in PMD-specific APIs. I don't think we could
use the PMD-specific APIs provided by a certain PMD on a bonded device.
Thanks & regards,
Tiwei Bie
