-----Original Message----- > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:47:55 +0200 > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > To: email@example.com > 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>, 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>, Rasesh Mody <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. > > > 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 > >