> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:48 AM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.si...@intel.com>; Yigit, > Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > jerin.jacobkollanukka...@cavium.com; Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; techbo...@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] net/softnic: sw fall-back for traffic > management > > 08/06/2017 18:43, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > <snip> ... > > > > > > I'm sure I'm missing something. > > > In my understanding, we do not need to change the ops: > > > - if the device offers the capability, let's call the ops > > > - else call the software fallback function > > > > > > > What you might be missing is the observation that the approach you're > describing requires changing each and every PMD. The changes are also > intrusive: need to change the ops that need the SW fall-back patching, also > need to change the private data of each PMD (as assigned to the opaque > dev->data->dev_private) to add the context data needed by the patched > ops. Therefore, this approach is a no-go. > > > > We are looking for a generic approach that can gracefully and transparently > work with any PMD. > > Nobody is participating in this discussion. > Can we discuss how to proceed in the technical board meeting?
Hi Thomas, We are working to finalize a new version of the Soft NIC PMD which has a much simplified/straightforward design (we'll explain in the cover letter). We expect to send it in the next few days, hopefully we can target RC2. I propose you take another look at this version and then decide if we need TB involvement or not? Regards, Cristian
