Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-09-05 Thread Jerin Jacob
-Original Message- > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:57:13 +0200 > From: Thomas Monjalon > To: Jerin Jacob > Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Shahaf Shuler > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API > > 28/08/2017 07:00, Jerin Jacob: > > From: Shahaf Shul

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-28 Thread Thomas Monjalon
28/08/2017 07:00, Jerin Jacob: > From: Shahaf Shuler > > Friday, August 25, 2017 1:32 PM, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > > > The new API does not have an equivalent for the below Tx flags: > > > > > > > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT > > > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP > > > > > > IMO, it make sense to ke

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-27 Thread Jerin Jacob
-Original Message- > Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 06:05:25 + > From: Shahaf Shuler > To: Jerin Jacob > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API > > Friday, August 25, 2017 1:32 PM, Jerin Jacob: > >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-26 Thread Shahaf Shuler
Friday, August 25, 2017 1:32 PM, Jerin Jacob: > > > > The new API does not have an equivalent for the below Tx flags: > > > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP > > IMO, it make sense to keep those flags as PMD optimization if an application > does not need reference count a

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-25 Thread Jerin Jacob
-Original Message- > Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:54:27 +0300 > From: Shahaf Shuler > To: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.12.0 > > Tx offloads configuration is per queue. Tx offloads are enabled b

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-23 Thread Thomas Monjalon
07/08/2017 12:54, Shahaf Shuler: > The new API does not have an equivalent for the below Tx flags: > > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT > * ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP > > The reason is that those flags are not to manage offloads, rather some > guarantee from application on the way it uses mbufs, therefor

Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-22 Thread Shahaf Shuler
Hi, I would like to get some inputs on the below. This is a big (and important) work which I want to include on 17.11. I need to understand the current approach is acceptable before I continue. Monday, August 7, 2017 1:54 PM, Shahaf Shuler: > Tx offloads configuration is per queue. Tx offloads

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4] ethdev new offloads API

2017-08-07 Thread Shahaf Shuler
Tx offloads configuration is per queue. Tx offloads are enabled by default, and can be disabled using ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NO* flags. This behaviour is not consistent with the Rx side where the Rx offloads configuration is per port. Rx offloads are disabled by default and enabled according to bit field