> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:54 PM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com; > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.si...@intel.com>; > Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim > <tim.odrisc...@intel.com>; Glynn, Michael J <michael.j.gl...@intel.com>; > Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1 > > 10/07/2017 17:46, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > 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? > > > > Why do you think it is useless? How would the driver get the function > specific (i.e. rte_flow, rte_tm, ...) operations structure? > > The drivers get the structure via rte_tm_ops_get() function which is > in the well named file rte_tm_driver.h > My question is about rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get() function which is > in the file rte_ethdev.h. > Please explain the difference between both functions and why > rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get() is needed. > > Sorry for opening the discussion, I don't see the explanation in doxygen.
Hi Thomas, Yes, you're right: drivers get the TM ops structure through the rte_tm_ops_get(), which directly accesses the dev_ops. You are fine with this, right? Your concern is on the rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get(), right? This function can be used by the app to see if TM feature is supported (the ops output argument is non-NULL) or not (the ops output argument is NULL). Here we followed the rte_flow pattern. Are you suggesting that we should remove it? Regards, Cristian
