> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Dai, Wei > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 10:09 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > tho...@monjalon.net > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add enum type for loop on Rx/Tx > offloads > > Hi, Konstantin > Thanks for your feedback. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:00 PM > > To: Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add enum type for loop on > > Rx/Tx offloads > > > > > > Hi Wei, > > > > > > > > This patch adds enum rte_eth_rx_offload_type and enum > > > rte_eth_tx_offload_type. For a loop on all Rx offloads, it is > > > convenient to begin with the first enum member > > > ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_FIRST_FEATURE and to end at > > ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TOTAL_NUM. > > > A loop on all Tx offloads can begin with > > ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_FIRST_FEATURE > > > and end at ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_TOTAL_NUM. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei....@intel.com> > > > --- > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 44 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h index 0361533..0089ea3 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > > @@ -946,6 +946,27 @@ struct rte_eth_conf { > > > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER | \ > > > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_EXTEND) > > > > > > +enum rte_eth_rx_offload_type { > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_FIRST_FEATURE = 0, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_STRIP = ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_FIRST_FEATURE, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_QINQ_STRIP, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_MACSEC_STRIP, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_EXTEND, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TIMESTAMP, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY, > > > + ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TOTAL_NUM > > > +}; > > > + > > > /* > > > * If new Rx offload capabilities are defined, they also must be > > > * mentioned in rte_rx_offload_names in rte_ethdev.c file. > > > @@ -981,6 +1002,29 @@ struct rte_eth_conf { > > > */ > > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY 0x00020000 > > > > > > +enum rte_eth_tx_offload_type { > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_FIRST_FEATURE = 0, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_INSERT = > ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_FIRST_FEATURE, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_SCTP_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TSO, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_QINQ_INSERT, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_TNL_TSO, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_GRE_TNL_TSO, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_IPIP_TNL_TSO, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_GENEVE_TNL_TSO, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MACSEC_INSERT, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MT_LOCKFREE, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY, > > > + ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_TOTAL_NUM > > > +}; > > > > What is the purpose to introduce these enums? > > It looks like they are not used anywhere? > > Konstantin > > When I make the patch for new offloading test with testpmd, I find I need loop > on all possible offloads, without this enum type, I have to loop from bit 0 > to bit > 63, I think it is better to stop at the last one and No need to bit 63. > I guess it will be helpful for some future application which need loop on all > offloadings.
If you want to know the total offload count, You can just create an api like rte_eth_get_xx_offload_count to reuse the rte_xx_offload_names So we don't need maintain same information in two place, But still, in your testpmd, I saw the loop will break at first UNKNOWN, so loop from 0 to 63 is still no waste, am I right? maybe you need to give a better example for why we need this Regards Qi > > > > > > + > > > /* > > > * If new Tx offload capabilities are defined, they also must be > > > * mentioned in rte_tx_offload_names in rte_ethdev.c file. > > > -- > > > 2.7.5
