Hi, Inline. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:48 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>; Jerin Jacob > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; Shijith Thotton > <shijith.thot...@cavium.com>; Santosh Shukla > <santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com>; Rahul Lakkireddy > <rahul.lakkire...@chelsio.com>; John Daley (johndale) <johnd...@cisco.com>; > Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Konstantin Ananyev > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Qi Zhang > <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Jingjing Wu <jingjing...@intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil > <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; Nelio Laranjeiro > <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf > Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Tomasz Duszynski <t...@semihalf.com>; > Jianbo Liu <jianbo....@arm.com>; Alejandro Lucero > <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>; Hemant Agrawal > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>; > Harish Patil <harish.pa...@cavium.com>; Rasesh Mody > <rasesh.m...@cavium.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Shrikrishna Khare <skh...@vmware.com>; > Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Allain Legacy > <allain.leg...@windriver.com>; Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API > > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." > > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags in > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, when calling > respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for each > queue. > > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not repeated in > queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/094023.html > > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port offloads in > queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html > > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads > > 1/ Do you agree with above API change?
YES > > > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation and remove > the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs switched > to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, the sonner it > is > fixed, the better. > > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? > > YES > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at port level, > cannot be disabled at queue level. > > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? YES > > > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, i.e. every queue > capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level only if it can be > applied to a specific queue. > > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? YES > > > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) Thank you >
