Friday, August 25, 2017 1:32 PM, Jerin Jacob: > > > > The new API does not have an equivalent for the below Tx flags: > > > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP > > IMO, it make sense to keep those flags as PMD optimization if an application > does not need reference count and multi mempool in the application. > As example, An non trivial application like l3fwd does not need both of them.
The l3fwd application is yet another simple example from DPDK tree. Am not sure that a complete vRouter/vSwitch implementation is with the same characteristics. Moreover, I think the fact there is an application which is able to use it is not enough. IMO there needs to be some basic functionality always provided by the PMDs and not controlled by flags. For example, let's say we have an application which always sends the mbufs with the same ol_flags, or even with the same length. Will it make sense to add more flags to control it? Will it makes sense to run RFC2544 benchmark with testpmd io forwarding with those flags? If the answer is yes, maybe those flags (and others to follow) belong on different location on ethdev. However for sure they are not offloads.
