On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:10:36PM +0530, santosh wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > > On Monday 11 September 2017 03:03 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:38:39PM +0530, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > >> On 9/7/2017 3:41 PM, santosh wrote: > >>> Sorry for the font, resending proposed API: > >>> > >>> /** > >>> * Get list of supported pools for a port > >>> * @param port_id [in] > >>> * Pointer to port identifier of the device. > >>> * @param pools [out] > >>> * Pointer to the list of supported pools for that port. > >>> * Returns with array of pool ops name handler of size > >>> * RTE_MEMPOOL_OPS_NAMESIZE. > >>> * @return > >>> * >=0: Success; PMD has updated supported pool list. > >>> * <0: Failure; > >>> */ > >>> > >>> int rte_eth_dev_pools_ops_supported(uint8_t port_id, char **pools) > >>> > >>> Hemant, Olivier: Does above api make sense? Pl. confirm. Thanks. > >>> > >> looks ok to me. > > I think that returning a list is harder to use in an application, instead > > of an > > api that just returns an int (priority): > > > > int rte_eth_dev_pool_ops_supported(uint8_t port_id, const char *pool) > > > > The possible returned values are: > > ENOTSUP: mempool ops not supported > > < 0: any other error > > 0: best mempool ops choice for this pmd > > 1: this mempool ops are supported > > > > Let's take an example. Our application wants to select ops that > > will match all pmds. The pseudo code would be like this: > > > > best_score = -1 > > best_ops = NULL > > for ops in mempool_ops: > > score = 0 > > for p in ports: > > ret = rte_eth_dev_pools_ops_supported(p, ops.name) > > if ret < 0: > > score = -1 > > break > > score += ret > > if score == -1: > > continue > > if best_score == -1 || score < best_score: > > best_score = score > > best_ops = ops > > if best_score == -1: > > print "no matching mempool ops" > > else: > > print "selected ops: %s", best_ops.name > > > > > > You can do the exercise with the API you are proposing, but I think > > it would be harder. > > > > Olivier > > Proposed model looks okay and I'll implement _pool_ops_supported() api. > But I cant promise the testpmd related changes with this series, > Since rc1 is closing so let the api go in -rc1 release and testpmd changes > will > follow then. is it ok with you?
It's ok for me.
