10/07/2017 18:47, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 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?
Yes > Your concern is on the rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get(), right? Yes, I feel you start understanding what I'm talking about ;) > 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? Yes As far as I know, the rte_flow API does not expose the ops to the application. Can we have the drivers capabilities in a different way? In general, capabilities are richer than just checking there is a function. I think it is better to have flags. Anyway, capabilities API can be discussed after 17.08 merge.
