On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:57:03AM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:32 AM > > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > > step...@networkplumber.org; dev@dpdk.org; Shahaf Shuler > > <shah...@mellanox.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new > > offloads API > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:02:26AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 13/09/2017 23:42, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > > 13/09/2017 14:56, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > > Konstantin, I would like your opinion about the proposal below. > > > > > It is about making on the fly configuration more generic. > > > > > You say it is possible to configure VLAN on the fly, > > > > > and I think we should make it possible for other offload features. > > > > > > > > It would be a good thing, but I don't think it is possible for all > > > > offloads. > > > > For some of them you still have to stop the queue(port) first. > > > > > > > > Also I am not sure what exactly do you propose? > > > > Is that something like that: > > > > - wipe existing offload bitfileds from rte_eth_rxmode (already done by > > > > Shahaf) > > > > - Instead of uint64_t offloads inside both rte_eth_rxmode and > > > > te_eth_rxconf > > > > Introduce new functions: > > > > > > > > int rte_eth_set_port_rx_offload(portid, uint64_t offload_mask); > > > > int rte_eth_set_queue_rx_offload(portid, queueid, uint64_t > > > > offload_mask); > > Would be useful to have a valid mask here, to indicate what bits to use. > > That way, you can adjust one bit without worrying about what other bits > > you may change in the process. There are probably apps out there that > > just want to toggle a single bit on, and off, at runtime while ignoring > > others. > > Alternatively, we can have set/unset functions which enable/disable > > offloads, based on the mask. > > My thought was that people would do: > > uint64_t offload = rte_eth_get_port_rx_offload(port); > offload |= RX_OFFLOAD_X; > offload &= ~RX_OFFLOAD_Y; > rte_eth_set_port_rx_offload(port, offload); > > In that case, I think we don't really need a mask. > Sure, that can work, I'm not concerned either way.
Overall, I think my slight preference would be to have set/unset, enable/disable functions to make it clear what is happening, rather than having to worry about the complete set each time. uint64_t rte_eth_port_rx_offload_enable(port_id, offload_mask) uint64_t rte_eth_port_rx_offload_disable(port_id, offload_mask) each returning the bits failing (or bits changed if you like, but I prefer bits failing as return value, since it means 0 == no_error). /Bruce
