> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 9:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Ajit Khaparde <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > <[email protected]>; Shijith Thotton > <[email protected]>; Santosh Shukla > <[email protected]>; Rahul Lakkireddy > <[email protected]>; John Daley <[email protected]>; Lu, > Wenzhuo <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <[email protected]>; Xing, Beilei <[email protected]>; Zhang, > Qi Z <[email protected]>; Wu, Jingjing <[email protected]>; Adrien > Mazarguil <[email protected]>; Nelio Laranjeiro > <[email protected]>; Yongseok Koh <[email protected]>; Shahaf > Shuler <[email protected]>; Tomasz Duszynski <[email protected]>; > Jianbo Liu <[email protected]>; Alejandro Lucero > <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > <[email protected]>; Shreyansh Jain <[email protected]>; > Harish Patil <[email protected]>; Rasesh Mody > <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > <[email protected]>; Shrikrishna Khare <[email protected]>; > Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]>; Legacy, Allain (Wind River) > <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce > <[email protected]>; Gaetan Rivet <[email protected]>; > Olivier Matz <[email protected]> > 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, looks like a also good chance to move offload check into ethdev layer, the common logic no need to be repeated in each PMD > > 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 >
