-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:46:50 +0000 > From: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > CC: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>, Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads > API > > Monday, September 11, 2017 11:06 AM, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > I don't understand. > > > From the exact link above, you explicitly say that *you* will move this > > > flags > > once the series is integrated. Quoting: > > > > > > " > > > > Please Jerin, could you work on moving these settings in a new API? > > > > > > Sure. Once the generic code is in place. We are committed to fix the > > > PMDs by 18.02. > > > > Yes. I will take care of the PMD(nicvf) side of the changes. Not in ethdev > > or > > mempool. Meaning, you need to decide how you are going to expose the > > equivalent of these flags and enable the generic code for those flags in > > ethdev or mempool. The drivers side of changes I can take care. > > > > How about doing it a PMD option? > Seems like nicvf is the only PMD which care about them.
Lets take flag by flag: ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP - I think, this should be removed. But we can have common code in ethdev pmd to detect all pool being configured from on the same pool as on the rx_configure() application passes the mempool. ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT: This one has i40e and nicvf consumers. And it is driven by the use case too. So it should available in some form. > > If there will be more PMDs later, we can think about which API is needed. >
