> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 4:36 PM > To: Liu, Yong <yong....@intel.com> > Cc: Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] examples/ip_reassembly: add parse- > ptype option > > 2017-02-10 07:53, Liu, Yong: > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > 2017-02-09 22:25, Marvin Liu: > > > > Add new option parse-ptype in this sample in case of pmd driver > > > > not provide packet type info. If this option enabled, packet type > > > > will be analyzed in Rx callback function. > > > [...] > > > > + if (parse_ptype) { > > > > + if (add_cb_parse_ptype(portid, queueid) < 0) > > > > + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, > > > > + "Fail to add ptype cb\n"); > > > > + } else if (!check_ptype(portid)) > > > > + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, > > > > + "PMD can not provide needed ptypes\n"); > > > > > > Instead of adding a new option, why not adding the callback > automatically > > > if the packet type is not supported by the hardware? > > > > Thomas, > > We want to let user choice which kind of method for packet type parsing. > > If start application with parse-type option, is meaning user want to use > software parsing otherwise will use hardware parsing. > > I do not understand why this user choice matters. > If it is available, hardware ptype is better, isn't it? > It it is not available, we need to be aware of this specific issue, > otherwise we have the error "PMD can not provide needed ptypes" > (without suggesting to use the option).
Yes, hardware always has better performance than software. I think it matters in some performance measurement scenarios. Like l3fwd, we compared performance with software and hardware packet parsers and this option may not have much value in other samples. I will rework this patch and fallback to software if hardware not support. BRs, Marvin
