14/06/2017 12:37, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 05/25/2017 08:40 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 25 May 2017 16:57:53 +0100 > > Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Roman Zhukov <roman.zhu...@oktetlabs.ru> > >> > >> Check that numbers of Rx and Tx descriptors satisfy descriptors limits > >> from the Ethernet device information, otherwise adjust them to boundaries. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Roman Zhukov <roman.zhu...@oktetlabs.ru> > >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > Seems like new added complexity. > > It looks like there is no more comments. > > > Why not just allow devices to take the request as a hint and truncate or pad > > as needed. > > Yes, it is possible solution. In this case rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get() > may be used > to get real values. If so, first of all it should be clearly documented > in the > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()/rte_eth_tx_queue_setup() and > rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()/rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get(). > However, the problem of such approach is non-obvious modification of > values specified by the ethdev API caller. Some applications use ring sizes > to estimate mbuf pool size and other resources and if real values differ > from specified (and it is not taken into account since everything happens > silently without any errors) it could be tricky to find out root cause of > possible problems. That's why we have chosen approach with extra > helper function which does the adjustment.
Any more comment on this? If not, it will be applied soon. > > IMHO to be successful DPDK must have as simple as possible API for > > application. > > Good enough and as little more as possible. But other people seem to think > > that having the richest and most complex possible API is a good thing. I agree it is better to have a simple API. However the community process is in favor of code writers. We cannot reject a solution if there is no other solution proposed in a reasonnable timeframe.
