10/07/2017 15:21, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 10/07/2017 12:55, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > 2/ Some functions are exposed in the API to query the ops. > > > > It seems dangerous and useless: > > > > - rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get > > > > - rte_tm_ops_get > > > > > > Thomas, hopefully this is a misunderstanding on your side :(((. > > > > Don't worry :) > > > > > This is a critical point that we debated ad nauseam on this email list > > > (RFC, V1 > > -V6) and privately as well. You were included in the conversation, you also > > provided feed-back that we incorporated in the code, as documented in the > > patchset history log. > > > > > > This is simply the mechanism that we (including you) agreed to use for > > modularizing the DPDK ethdev by adding new functionality in a modular plug- > > in way using separate namespace. This is the exact clone of the same > > mechanism that rte_flow is using and was merged in DPDK release 17.02. > > Why this change on the fundamentals now? > > > > > > Hopefully, it is just misunderstanding. > > > > I mean that only the drivers need to get the ops. > > The applications are using some dedicated functions rte_tm_* , right? > > So the applications does not need direct ops access with > > rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get()? > > Sorry if it is my misunderstanding. > > > > About rte_tm_ops_get, I don't remember why I talked about it. > > It seems exposed only to drivers. My mistake. No issue there. > > OK, so we're good then?
Not exactly. In my understanding, rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get() is useless. Should it be removed then?
