> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko [mailto:arybche...@solarflare.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:28 AM > To: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Jerin Jacob > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org>; Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com>; > Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads API > > On 09/12/2017 11:03 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > OK, well understood the requirement for such flags. Thanks for your replies. > > > > I think that for simplicity I will add two more flags on the Tx offloads > > capabilities: > > > > DEV_TX_OFFLOADS _MULTI_MEMPOOL <** Device supports transmission of mbufs > > from multiple mempools. */ > > DEV_TX_OFFLOADS_INDIRECT_MBUFS <** Device support transmission of indirect > > mbufs. */ > > Indirect mbufs is just an example when reference counters are required. > Direct mbufs may use reference counters as well.
Personally, I still in favor to move these 2 flags away from TX_OFFLOADS. But if people think it would be really helpfull to keep them, should we have then: DEV_TX_OFFLOADS_FAST_FREE (or whatever then name will be) - it would mean the same what (NOMULTIMEMP | NOREFCOUNT) means now. ? Konstsantin > > > Those caps can be reported by the PMD as per-port/per-queue offloads. > > Application will choose how to set those. When not set - PMD > can assume all mbufs has ref_cnt = 1 and the same mempool. > > > > Any objection? >
