On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 01:32:29PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 18/09/2017 13:11, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:57:03AM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > > > 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. > [...] > [technical details skipped] > [...] > > > > > > > If so, then it seems reasonable to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good, thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I'm a bit late to the review, but the above suggestion of > > > > > separate > > > > > APIs for enabling offloads, seems much better than passing in the > > > > > flags > > > > > in structures to the existing calls. From what I see all later > > > > > revisions > > > > > of this patchset still use the existing flags parameter to setup calls > > > > > method. > > > > > > > > > > Some advantages that I see of the separate APIs: > > > > > * allows some settings to be set before start, and others afterwards, > > > > > with an appropriate return value if dynamic config not supported. > > > > > * we can get fine grained error reporting from these - the set calls > > > > > can > > > > > all return the mask indicating what offloads could not be applied - > > > > > zero means all ok, 1 means a problem with that setting. This may be > > > > > easier for the app to use than feature discovery in some cases. > > > > > * for those PMDs which support configuration at a per-queue level, it > > > > > can allow the user to specify the per-port settings as a default, > > > > > and > > > > > then override that value at the queue level, if you just want one > > > > > queue > > > > > different from the rest. > > > > > > > > I think we all in favor to have a separate API here. > > > > Though from the discussion we had at latest TB, I am not sure it is > > > > doable > > > > in 17.11 timeframe. > > > > > > Ok, so does that imply no change in this release, and that the existing > > > set is to be ignored? > > > > No, my understanding the current plan is to go forward with Shahaf patches, > > and then apply another one (new set/get API) on top of them. > > Yes, it is what we agreed (hope to see it in minutes). > If someone can do these new patches in 17.11 timeframe, it's great! > Bruce, do you want to make it a try?
If I have the chance, I can try, but given how short time is and that userspace is on next week, I very much doubt I'll even get it started. /Bruce
