-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> Date: Friday, March 30, 2018 at 6:47 AM To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>, "Jacob, Jerin" <jerin.jacobkollanukka...@cavium.com>, "Thotton, Shijith" <shijith.thot...@cavium.com>, "Shukla, Santosh" <santosh.shu...@cavium.com>, Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkire...@chelsio.com>, John Daley <johnd...@cisco.com>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>, Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <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>, "Mody, Rasesh" <rasesh.m...@cavium.com>, Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>, Shrikrishna Khare <skh...@vmware.com>, Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>, Allain Legacy <allain.leg...@windriver.com>, Bruce Richardson <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. But pls confirm that this would still work properly if RX supports port-only based offloads and doesn’t support queue based offloads at all, as advertised in dev_infos_get(). dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa = 0 and dev_info->rx_offload_capa = (DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | ...); > > >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 > > >Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. >Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) >Thank you > >
