On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:23:11AM +0000, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Nithin, > > <snip>... > > > > You are missing the shaper_shared_(packet, byte)_mode supported for > > non-leaf and leaf nodes in struct rte_tm_level_capabilities. > > > > > > The description of this nodes should be aligned with the description of > > > e.g. > > shaper_shared_n_max field: basically, we want to say that, when true, the > > flag signifies there is at least on non-leaf/leaf node on this level that > > can be > > part of a shared shaper that works in packet/byte mode. Makes sense? > > > > I intentionally didn't add shaper_shared_(packet, byte)_mode in node and > > level > > capabilities and added it in only global cap assuming existing semantics are > > enforcing that. > > > > Currently, except for 'shaper_shared_n_max', all the other existing shared > > shaper capabilities like > > shaper_shared_dual_rate_n_max, shaper_shared_rate_min, etc are only > > provided in global cap. > > > > I felt the semantics are as such because, shared shaper doesn't really > > belong > > to any node > > or level and any node from any level can attach to a particular shared > > shaper. > > Isn't it so > > ? > > That's exactly why we need to formulate node/level capability from node's > perspective, and not from the shared shaper's perspective, as a shared shaper > is by definition related to a set of nodes, not just one node. > > The fact that a given node can be part of a shared shaper that works in > packet or byte mode, etc is a node capability in itself, right? So the node's > capability called "shaper_shared_(packet, byte)_mode" being supported by the > node means that this specific node can be part of a shared shaper that has > those properties. To me, this is a valuable thing to capture in node/level > capabilities. > > We already have other node level capabilities for shared shaper, and we apply > the same rationale there. > > What do you think? Ok. I'll add them from the node's perspective. Thanks.
> > Regards, > Cristian
