> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto: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 <johnd...@cisco.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > Xing, > Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Wu, > Jingjing > <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>; Legacy, Allain (Wind River) > <allain.leg...@windriver.com>; Richardson, Bruce <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 Thanks Jingjing > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) > Thank you >
