On 20/03/2018 15:03, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 3/16/2018 3:36 PM, Remy Horton wrote:
[..]
struct rte_eth_dev_preferred_size {
uint16_t burst;
uint16_t ring;
uint16_t nb_queues;
};
struct rte_eth_dev_info {
/* ... */
struct rte_eth_dev_preferred_size preferred_rx;
struct rte_eth_dev_preferred_size preferred_tx;
};
Hi Remy,
There are already two members in "struct rte_eth_dev_info":
"struct rte_eth_rxconf default_rxconf;"
"struct rte_eth_txconf default_txconf;"
These two are filled by PMDs. I think we can say these are PMD preferred values
for rte_eth_[rt]xconf structs.
Right now we are extending the preferred values that PMDs can provide.
So what about using same naming convention to be consistent with existing usage?
Something like "struct rte_eth_portconf default_portconf"?
Would default_[rt]xportconf be ok?
I would consider adding the parameters to rte_eth_[rt]xconf rather than
creating a new rte_eth_portconf but since the former is used elsewhere
this might cause complications.
