Hello Anoob, Comments inline.
Regards Sunil Kumar > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph, Anoob [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 6:44 PM > To: Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]>; Bruce Richardson > <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > <[email protected]>; Pablo de Lara > <[email protected]> > Cc: Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad > <[email protected]>; Nikhil Rao > <[email protected]>; Pavan Nikhilesh > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] eventdev: add files for eventmode helper > > Hi Sunil, > > Please see inline. > > Thanks, > > Anoob > > > On 03-07-2018 11:57, Sunil Kumar Kori wrote: > > External Email > > > > Hello Anoob, > > > > Regards > > Sunil Kumar > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joseph, Anoob [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:13 PM > >> To: Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]>; Bruce Richardson > >> <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > >> <[email protected]>; Pablo de Lara > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad > >> <[email protected]>; Nikhil Rao > >> <[email protected]>; Pavan Nikhilesh > >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] eventdev: add files for eventmode helper > >> > >> Hi Sunil, > >> > >> On 27-06-2018 11:50, Sunil Kumar Kori wrote: > >>> External Email > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Sunil Kumar > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Anoob Joseph [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>> Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:54 PM > >>>> To: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > >>>> <[email protected]>; Pablo de Lara > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Hemant > Agrawal > >>>> <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad > >>>> <[email protected]>; Nikhil Rao > >>>> <[email protected]>; Pavan Nikhilesh > >>>> <[email protected]>; Sunil Kumar Kori > >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>> Subject: [PATCH 01/20] eventdev: add files for eventmode helper > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > >>>> --- > >>>> lib/librte_eventdev/Makefile | 2 ++ > >>>> lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.c | 7 +++++++ > >>>> lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.h | 6 ++++++ > >>>> lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper_internal.h | 6 ++++++ > >>>> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+) > >>>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.c > >>>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.h > >>>> create mode 100644 > >>>> lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper_internal.h > >>>> > >>> Having a separate helper library to configure eventdev may be a > >>> overhead to the application as application needs to understand main > >>> DPDK API > >> as well as helper routines. > >>> It can be kept in application as a separate file. > >> For one application we could add a new file, but if we are to enable > >> event mode with multiple applications, wouldn't this be duplication of lot > >> of > code? > >> Considering that I haven't added the required parsing routines, the > >> code additions in one application to make it eventdriven would be huge. > >> > >> I do agree that making this as a library poses its own challenges, > >> but do you have something better in mind? Another option we can think > >> of is making all these changes part of some common headers and then > >> each application can include and start using these functions. I'm > >> fine with any approach, but we need to consider making at-least l3fwd & > ipsec-secgw also event driven. > >> > > With this approach, following may be the challenges: > > 1. Documentation will be required for user to use eventdev helper library. > > 2. Helper library should cater all the generic use cases which can be > > catered > from rte_eventdev_*** library. > > If not, supported configuration/use cases should also be documented and > should be future evolving with eventdev library enhancements. > The formal documentation is yet to be added. I do agree that we will need a > sufficiently detailed documentation for the helper. Right now, all helper > routines > are added with enough scope for development in the future. This patch series > was to float the helper library idea and get possible suggestions for > improvement. > > Is there any other issue with the approach, apart from the documentation? No, I am okay with current approach.
