On 12/04/2017 12:54 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 12/1/2017 6:22 PM, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
On 12/01/2017 06:51 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 12/1/2017 2:17 PM, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
On 11/30/2017 09:29 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
remove RTE_ETHDEV_HAS_LRO_SUPPORT flag from header.
Flag seems added with the patch that adds LRO support, and intention
looks like giving a pointer to application that library supports LRO.
Exactly. Removing this flag may make the existing application "think" that LRO
is not supported.
Why do you want to remove it to begin with?
I agree that this is a little controversial, and I don't have a strong opinion
about it, I thought twice before sending or not sending the patch :)
This flag can be useful for the applications that use different versions of the
DPDK library (with the ones does and doesn't support LRO), so that application
can be more portable.
I would understand a dynamic approach, which would be useful for distributed
applications that you don't know and can't control what version of the DPDK
library used.
But here to benefit from this flag you need to compile your application against
DPDK library, and if you are compiling it you already know if your DPDK supports
LRO or not. And this is not something keeps changing platform to platform etc,
after a specific release LRO is always supported.
True but DPDK is usually not a part of your source tree - it (should) come as a
library and currently there isn't any proper way to query feature set.
This flag was also added after a lot of consideration as a rather ugly
compromise since there wasn't (and there isn't) a proper way to do that at that
(this) time. See more on that below.
And this is the only capability support flag in the ethdev, there are many new
features introduced in each release but they are not advertised by a capability
flag. Only having LRO flag can be confusing.
_Perhaps_ DPDK should have a way to expose the supported features, and a dynamic
runtime way can be better option than compile time macros, but it should be
generic nothing specific to LRO support.
IMO it's not "perhaps" it's a "must" _however_
This is even wider than ethdev, more like in DPDK scope, we need someone to
attack this issue.
absolutely!
you can't remove this flag without giving some other tool to do the same.
Fair enough, I will drop the patch.
Querying a DPDK version would be a wrong direction because some Linux
distributions (yes, I'm talking about you, Ubuntu) tend to have it's own trees
with their own backports and these trees may be light years ahead in their patch
level compared to vanilla trees with the same version.
+1 to have better way than version check.
Fixes: 8eecb3295aed ("ixgbe: add LRO support")
Cc: vl...@cloudius-systems.com
Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
---
lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
index 341c2d624..e620c3706 100644
--- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
+++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
@@ -172,9 +172,6 @@ extern "C" {
#include <stdint.h>
-/* Use this macro to check if LRO API is supported */
-#define RTE_ETHDEV_HAS_LRO_SUPPORT
-
#include <rte_log.h>
#include <rte_interrupts.h>
#include <rte_dev.h>
