[lng-odp] Updated invitation with note: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Weekly from 9am to 10am on Tuesday from Tue Dec 18, 2018 to Tue Feb 12 (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

document/d/1KjcdpidVqMCDa6FXURSxrTwFjkmb1_pKz54m7eYvVMo/edit ── Bill Fischofer is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/399698371 One tap mobile +17207072699,,399698371# US +16465588656,,399698371# US (New York) Dial by your location +1 72

Re: [lng-odp] ODP CRC32

Hi Daniel. Thanks for your question. The spec for the odp_hash_crc32() API looks like this: /** * Calculate CRC-32 * * Calculates CRC-32 over the data. The polynomial is 0x04c11db7. * * @param data Pointer to data * @param data_len Data length in bytes * @param init_val CRC generator

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Jan 1, 2019 9am - 10am (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

This event has been canceled. Title: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call Meeting notes document: https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1KjcdpidVqMCDa6FXURSxrTwFjkmb1_pKz54m7eYvVMo/edit ── Bill Fischofer is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Dec 25, 2018 9am - 10am (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

This event has been canceled. Title: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call Meeting notes document: https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1KjcdpidVqMCDa6FXURSxrTwFjkmb1_pKz54m7eYvVMo/edit ── Bill Fischofer is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https

[lng-odp] Updated invitation: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Weekly from 9am to 10am on Tuesday from Tue Dec 4 to Tue Dec 18 (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

from Tue Dec 4 to Tue Dec 18 Central Time - Chicago (changed) Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * lng-odp@lists.linaro.org * ilias.apalodi

[lng-odp] Updated invitation: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Weekly from 9am to 10am on Tuesday (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

This event has been changed. Title: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call Meeting notes document: https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1KjcdpidVqMCDa6FXURSxrTwFjkmb1_pKz54m7eYvVMo/edit ── Bill Fischofer is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https

Re: [lng-odp] Compression API: hashing

I'd like to hear from Janne as to what OFP would prefer. I'll also add this to the discussion agenda for tomorrow's public call. Thanks. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 10/12/2018 22:11, Bill Fischofer wrote: >

Re: [lng-odp] Compression API: hashing

I assume that's an API change? Can you put together a draft PR of what what would look like that we can discuss? On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been reworking compression API implementation to properly >

[lng-odp] Canceled event with note: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Dec 4, 2018 9am - 10am (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

When: Tue Dec 4, 2018 9am – 10am Central Time - Chicago Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * Mike Holmes * Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov

[lng-odp] Canceled event with note: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Nov 20, 2018 9am - 10am (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

r both iOS and Android. See the meeting landing page for details. When: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9am – 10am Central Time - Chicago Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: Get Physical address

ou'd like to see, feel free to create a PR to add it if that would better illustrate it. > > > Liron > > > > *From:* Bill Fischofer > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2018 22:40 > *To:* Liron Himi > *Cc:* Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) ; > lng-odp-forward > *Subject:* Re:

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: Get Physical address

atforms. If you'd like to discuss specifics we can do that during the weekly ODP public call (15:00 UTC every Tuesday). Feel free to join us for tomorrow's call or whenever else is convenient. > > > Liron > > > > *From:* Bill Fischofer > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2018 2

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: Get Physical address

oach is what DPDK offer with its EAL infrastructure. > > > > Thanks, > > Liron > > > > *From:* Bill Fischofer > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2018 17:47 > *To:* Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > *Cc:* Liron Himi ; lng-odp-forward < > lng-od

Re: [lng-odp] Get Physical address

Hi Liron, Sorry for the delay in responding as I was vacationing last week. As Matias noted, ODP does not have APIs for dealing with physical addresses, since the concept of a physical address tends to be very platform-specific and not universally shared. ODP refers to packet objects symbolically

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Sep 18, 2018 10am - 11am (CDT) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

Central Time - Chicago Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * song@linaro.org * sreejith.surendrann...@linaro.org * ola.liljed...@arm.com

Re: [lng-odp] Are those Asynchronous ordered locks available for use in 1.19?

Yes, these APIs are available however only platforms with HW support will show a practical difference in behavior. These APIs are hints to the implementation, which is why you cannot assume you hold the lock until after odp_schedule_order_lock_wait() completes. On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:41 AM Yan,

Re: [lng-odp] Reconsidering PowerPC architecture for ODP

While ODP itself is platform-neutral and architecture independent, which platforms to test on is a question of resourcing. So this is really an SC-level question. We'll support whatever architectures the ODP membership wishes to emphasize, but the current test focus remains Arm and x86. If we

Re: [lng-odp] destroy tm system

Bala had talked about a simplified TM API a while back. Perhaps it's timely to reopen that discussion? On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM Maxim Uvarov wrote: > I'm looking on errors of our example for traffic manager. There is > missing destroy path for created tm queues. Now when I look to it I'm

Re: [lng-odp] unrecognized command line option '-fstack-protector-strong'

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 2:03 PM Maxim Uvarov wrote: > On 27.06.2018 19:41, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > Is this an ODP question or a DPDK question? Is this unique to Ubuntu > > 14.04? I notice that release goes out of support in April 2019 so I'm > > wondering if it's still

Re: [lng-odp] unrecognized command line option '-fstack-protector-strong'

Is this an ODP question or a DPDK question? Is this unique to Ubuntu 14.04? I notice that release goes out of support in April 2019 so I'm wondering if it's still an important release to carry. On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM Maxim Uvarov wrote: > Ubuntu 14.04.5 which I run in container uses

Re: [lng-odp] push_head vs pull_head

= >> Ether(dst='08:00:27:4C:55:CC',src='08:00:27:76:B5:E0')/IP(ds >> t='192.168.111.1',src='192.168.111.2') >> >> And sending it through veth1. Am I doing something wrong? Do you have any >> hint about it? >> >> Best, >> Daniel >> >> >

Re: [lng-odp] push_head vs pull_head

Hi Daniel. Can you give a bit more detail? - What version of ODP are you using? Is this the odp-linux or odp-dpdk reference implementations from GitHub or some other implementation? - The platform / system you're running on. x86? Arm? Something else? - A small code snippet / test program

Re: [lng-odp] ODP Hello World

Glad to hear, Daniel. Please consider subscribing to this e-mail list as that will ensure faster response as otherwise I have to manually approve each of your posts. Just go to https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp for subscription instructions. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 11:35

[lng-odp] Next Week's ODP Public Call is Cancelled

As discussed during this week's ODP public call, due to a scheduling conflict with a Linaro internal meeting, the call for Tuesday May 29th is cancelled. The regular weekly ODP public call will resume on Tuesday June 5th at the usual time (15:00 UTC). See you there. Thank you. Bill Fischofer

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue May 29, 2018 10am - 11am (CDT) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

Central Time Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * Maxim Uvarov * Bala Manoharan * mykyta.iziumt...@linaro.org * Mike Holmes * Alexandru

Re: [lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler

Thanks, Bala. The link seems to have been corrupted in your post. The proper link is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HDHHxSMtHNWl9_sWIVoKRaB4zdsb4hT-PKK6sUB708s/ On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Bala Manoharan wrote: > Hi All, > > Below is the initial design

Re: [lng-odp] Scalable scheduler and scheduled timer queues.

Brian, can you comment on this? David did you want to submit a PR for this? On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:26 AM, David Nystrom wrote: > Hi, > > All schedulers except the scalable scheduler seem to respect scheduled > timer queues, except the scalable scheduler. > Is this

Re: [lng-odp] TigerMoth_LTS brach

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 28 April 2018 at 16:44, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > If we're going to be doing formal distributions each of these should h

Re: [lng-odp] TigerMoth_LTS brach

If we're going to be doing formal distributions each of these should have their own branch which are created off of the main base release branch. So TigerMoth_LTS is the "master" branch and it can have sub-branches for various distributions created from it. This permits distributions to control

Re: [lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler enhancement for ODP

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 6 April 2018 at 19:02, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.

Re: [lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler enhancement for ODP

Thanks, Bala. I like this direction. One point to discuss is the idea of flow hashes vs. flow ids or labels. A hash is an implementation-defined value that is derived from some application-specified set of fields (e.g., based on tuples). A flow id or label is an application-chosen value that is

Re: [lng-odp] Bug 3657

s. > > P Gyanesh Kumar Patra > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> Hi Gyanesh, >> >> Have you had a chance to look at >> https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 and see if Matias' suggestions >> are helpful to you? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Regards, >> Bill > >

[lng-odp] Bug 3657

Hi Gyanesh, Have you had a chance to look at https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 and see if Matias' suggestions are helpful to you? Thanks, Regards, Bill

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Mar 20, 2018 10am - 11am (CDT) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

Central Time Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org * qing.cha...@huawei.com * sreejith.surendrann...@linaro.org

Re: [lng-odp] issues with usage of mellanox 100G NICs with ODP & ODP-DPDK

Thanks. I've opened Bug https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 to track this. On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:36 PM, gyanesh patra wrote: > Hi, > I am coming back with the same issue here. As the odp-dpdk is updated to > the recent DPDK version inline with the ODP code

Re: [lng-odp] ODP packet reference API usecase

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Bogdan Pricope <bogdan.pric...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 17 February 2018 at 03:36, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > Changed to post this to the ODP mailing list, as this is a good topic to > > discuss t

Re: [lng-odp] ODP packet reference API usecase

Changed to post this to the ODP mailing list, as this is a good topic to discuss there. Let's first back up a bit and discuss the intent behind packet references. Packets typically consist of one or more headers followed by a payload. References are designed to allow multiple unique headers to

Re: [lng-odp] odp_packet_data() considered harmful

oo) wrote: > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov [mailto:dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org > ] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:00 PM > >> To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <petri.savolai...@nokia.com>; > >> B

Re: [lng-odp] odp_packet_data() considered harmful

We already have such a routine: odp_packet_offset(pkt, 0, _len, NULL); The fourth parameter of this routine returns the odp_packet_seg_t of the segment containing the specified offset (2nd parameter). I'm not aware of any use of this capability and would be happy to see it deprecated. We have a

[lng-odp] Today's ODP Public Call

discussions or as topics for next week's call. Thank you. Bill Fischofer Linaro

Re: [lng-odp] unexpected packet handling behavior with dpdk pktio support

> > > > worker 4 > > > > > rx: pktio 0, queue 2 > > > > > tx: pktio 1, queue 2 > > > > > worker 5 > > > > > rx: pktio 1, queue 2 > > > > > tx: pktio 0, queue 2 > > > > > worker 6

Re: [lng-odp] unexpected packet handling behavior with dpdk pktio support

Thanks, Gyanesh, that does sound like a bug. +cc Matias: Can you comment on this? On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:09 AM, gyanesh patra wrote: > ​I am testing an l2fwd use-case​. I am executing the use-case with two > CPUs​ & two interfaces​. > One interface ​with 2 Rx ​queues

Re: [lng-odp] contribution to odp

Thanks Tom. Please subscribe to the ODP mailing list at https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp to be able to post. Otherwise I have to manually approve each post, which will cause delay. To contribute you (or your company) needs to have an individual or corporate contribution agreement

Re: [lng-odp] api-next history was rewritten

Looks like all pending PRs written against api-next should be rebased. On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > > git push -f to api-next branch. Because of code is similar to master > there is no need to have branch with not plain history (merge from >

Re: [lng-odp] Travis runs not being linked from PRs?

Thanks. I didn't realize those were scrollable frames. I now see that they are. On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 01/12/18 20:27, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > Looks like something changed in the GitHub scripts. The link to the > T

[lng-odp] Travis runs not being linked from PRs?

Looks like something changed in the GitHub scripts. The link to the Travis run from the PR is no longer present. This is not good.

Re: [lng-odp] RSS in ODP

Per-CoS hashing is a newer feature that's part of ODP Tiger Moth. It was introduced in v1.16.0.0 I believe. We're now on v1.17.0.0 On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Oriol Arcas wrote: > Hi Bala, > > I didn't find any hashing parameter in the CoS API, is it implemented

Re: [lng-odp] RSS in ODP

ODP has several mechanisms for controlling workload distribution. The hash functions can distribute packets from a given PktIO to a group of queues, however the classifier is the most flexible means of controlling this. A CoS defines a target queue for the flow. This is the queue that receives

Re: [lng-odp] Tiger Moth rc1 has been tagged

Thanks, Maxim. Happy New Year. 2018 should be an exciting one for ODP. On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > Hello team, > > > I put 2 tags to repo it's v1.17.0.0 and v1.17.0.0_tigermoth_rc1. > > ODP API changes are really big can be found in CHANGELOG

Re: [lng-odp] ODP development process proposal

Thanks Dmitry. This is a good and timely topic, given both the Tiger Moth RC series now starting as well as the Caterpillar development work that we're going to start absorbing. I suspect Proposal 2 is the more flexible one, but we need to define the scope of these "topics" better than we've done

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Jan 2, 2018 9am - 10am (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

Jan 2, 2018 9am – 10am Central Time Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * sachin.sax...@linaro.org * Petri Savolainen * huanggaoya

[lng-odp] Canceled event: OpenDataPlane (ODP) Public Call @ Tue Dec 26, 2017 9am - 10am (CST) (lng-odp@lists.linaro.org)

Dec 26, 2017 9am – 10am Central Time Where: http:://bluejeans.com/564564564564564, BlueJeans Video Conference - http://bluejeans.com/564564564564 Calendar: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Who: * Bill Fischofer - creator * ola.liljed...@arm.com * Mike Holmes * Alexandru Badicioiu

Re: [lng-odp] IPv6 packet L3 checksum status

Since IPv6 doesn't have an L3 checksum and since we don't have a "not applicable" enum, I'd say OK would be the best choice. On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I was working on checksum parsing/status. What is the L3

Re: [lng-odp] IPsec and crypto performance and OpenSSL

I think we've pretty much abandoned the notion that linux-generic will support threads as separate processes as there seems to be little justification for it. The current plan is to continue this assumption in the "2.0" code base as well. So having OpenSSL rely on threads sharing the same address

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

Alternatively, it may be said that this function can return NULL on some > platforms. It will just prevent some applications to run on those > platforms. Which is also a design choice that would push the upper layers > to add the information (odp_packet_t in our case) in their meta data > (blib_

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 8 December 2017 at 13:40, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > &g

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 December 2017 at 22:36, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > &g

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

ster (optimized for each implementation) method to get > the ODP handle which is required for every application using ODP. > What applications other than VPP are using the ODP now? How do they solve > this issue? > > On 8 December 2017 at 05:36, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> >

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 December 2017 at 17:36, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > &g

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

al storage in VLIB. > > Michal, can you send a PR to ODP for the API so that we can debate the > feasibility of the API for Cavium/NXP platforms. > That's the point. An API that is tailored to a specific implementation or application is not what ODP is about. > > On 7 De

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

the project at all. So my advice would be to stash the handle in the VLIB buffer for now and focus on exploiting the native IPsec acceleration capabilities that ODP will permit. > On 7 December 2017 at 19:02, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Ping to oth

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 December 2017 at 08:01, Bogdan Pricope > wrote: > > TX is at line rate. Probably will get RX at line rate in direct mode, > too. > > Problem is how can you see the

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

to two > cachelines (it contains only offsets). Reading pointer for each packet from > VLIB would require to fetch 10 million cachelines per second. > Using prefetches does not help. > > On 7 December 2017 at 18:37, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > &

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

ter stored in VLIB buffer only 10Mpps and with this new api 10.6Mpps. > > On 7 December 2017 at 18:04, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> How would calling an API be better than referencing the stored data >> yourself? A cache line reference is a cache l

[lng-odp] Fwd: [P4-announce] [Blog Post] P4 Runtime - Putting the Control Plane in Charge of the Forwarding Plane.

Of interest to the ODP community. -- Forwarded message -- From: P4.org Date: Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:45 AM Subject: [P4-announce] [Blog Post] P4 Runtime - Putting the Control Plane in Charge of the Forwarding Plane. To: p4-annou...@lists.p4.org, p4-...@lists.p4.org,

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

How would calling an API be better than referencing the stored data yourself? A cache line reference is a cache line reference, and presumably the VLIB buffer is already in L1 since it's your active data. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michal Mazur wrote: > Hi, > >

Re: [lng-odp] api to disable/enale flow control

ODP currently does not have any APIs for PFC processing. We've discussed this in the past but there have been no use cases brought forward for it. Due to the timings involved PFC requires HW support, so I assume DPDK is taking advantage of NIC configuration options here. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at

Re: [lng-odp] IPsec: handling dummy packets (NH=59)

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On 20/11/17 18:23, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) is a feature of SAs according to RFC > > 4303 that must be negotiat

[lng-odp] Preparing for ODP 2.0

As a way of easing the sync burden on the 2.0 development branch, what do folks think of the idea of asking that new PRs being posted to api-next also be posted to 2.0? The contributions to api-next should be winding down as we approach Tiger Moth freeze, so this will help keep things in sync as

Re: [lng-odp] IPsec: handling dummy packets (NH=59)

Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) is a feature of SAs according to RFC 4303 that must be negotiated on a per-SA basis before it is used. So This would need to be hooked into higher-level protocols. >From an ODP perspective, it would be an additional set of parameters on the odp_ipsec_sa_create()

Re: [lng-odp] ODP vs Protocol headers

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 10 November 2017 at 05:35, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Historically ODP helper provided protocol-related headers with > > linux-generic

Re: [lng-odp] net-mdev and user space drivers

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > Bill mentioned that the packets are flying through net-mdev, good news :) > I mentioned that Ilias and Mykyta have gotten packet I/O through net_mdev. I'll let them characterize whether it's

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Le ven. 27 oct. 2017 à 23:51, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > a écrit : > >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> >> w

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Le ven. 27 oct. 2017 à 20:35, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > a écrit : > >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org >> > w

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Le ven. 27 oct. 2017 à 23:05, Honnappa Nagarahalli < > honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> a écrit : > >> On 27 October 2017 at 13:35, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org>

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Le ven. 27 oct. 2017 à 17:17, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > a écrit : > >> The problem with scanning, especially in a VNF environment, is that (a) >> the a

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

t; > On 27 October 2017 at 09:50, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> ODP 2.0 assumes Linux system services are available so the question of >> how to operate in bare metal environments is a separate one and up to those >> ODP implementations. Agai

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

n I designed my first kernel based fast packet > IO So there will be topics where I'll push hard to explain (not impose) > why we should go a harder route. This slows things down but I think this is > worth it. > > FF > > Le ven. 27 oct. 2017 à 06:23, Honnappa Nagarah

Re: [lng-odp] Relation between Enumerator class and Enumerator

I think you've captured the distinction correctly. The larger question is what does ODP itself need to do with this? When an interface name is presented to odp_pktio_open() it is the application's responsibility to provide a name string that can be mapped to the device that should be opened. ODP

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

I agree with Maxim. Best to get one or two working drivers and see what else is needed. The intent here is not for ODP to become another OS, so I'm not sure why we need to concern ourselves with bus walking and similar arcana. Linux has already long solved this problem. We should leverage what's

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: ODP1.15 with gcc-linaro-5.3.1

Hi Liron, Can you try this against the master or api-next branches of odp.git? I know we are currently doing cross-compile testing for aarch64 in Travis and aren't seeing this problem. If that's the case then this problem should resolve itself in the next tagged release, which should be out

Re: [lng-odp] Ingress Metering/Policing

There are no immediate plans for this feature. As an open source project, ODP moves in the direction of its contributors. If this is of importance to you, please consider submitting patches to add it. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Liron Himi wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any

Re: [lng-odp] API-next branch

I'm all for using topic branches, especially since we've switched to GitHub and most contributors are now familiar with it and using pull requests rather than raw patches sent to the mailing list. The whole reason for api-next was to separate in-progress API changes from regular maintenance

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v2 1/3] api: ipsec: rework ODP_IPSEC_SA_DISABLE into packet error

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Github ODP bot wrote: > From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > > According to the discussion on mailing list, most of implementations > will not be able to support odp_ipsec_sa_disable() status event > directly.

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1 1/3] api: ipsec: rework ODP_IPSEC_SA_DISABLE into packet error

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Peltonen, Janne (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < janne.pelto...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Comments below: > > > -Original Message- > > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > Github ODP bot > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:00 PM >

Re: [lng-odp] Latest odp_ipsec_sa_disable() discussion and proposed resolution

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On 23 October 2017 at 20:56, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > 2. All other IPsec events are reported as events of type &

Re: [lng-odp] odp api to query free/tottal ram

Hence the number of "in flight" packets (plus a safety margin) is what determines the needed pool size, and that's more a function of the number of pktios and their I/O rates than the available RAM. > > Maxim. > > > In general we need allocated > > > > On 23 Octobe

Re: [lng-odp] Latest odp_ipsec_sa_disable() discussion and proposed resolution

sec_sa_disable() and then sometime later getting some event /or/ > dummy packet (I don't care which) back that the SA can be safely destroyed > would work just fine for us. Any hardware specifics could be hidden from > the application in the HW-specific part of the ODP implementation. > &g

Re: [lng-odp] odp api to query free/tottal ram

Applications should request the amount of storage they need (possibly as configured) rather than trying to grab everything they can find "just in case". Especially in an NFV environment that's not very neighborly behavior. On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <

Re: [lng-odp] Packet checksum override behavior

ig->pktin.all_bits & ~capa.config.pktin.all_bits) { > ODP_ERR("Unsupported input configuration option\n"); > return -1; > } > if (config->pktout.all_bits & ~capa.config.pktout.all_bits) { > ODP_ERR("Unsupported output configuration option\n"); > return

Re: [lng-odp] Packet checksum override behavior

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Bogdan Pricope wrote: > Hi Petri and Janne, > > On APIs: > > void odp_packet_l3_chksum_insert(odp_packet_t pkt, int l3); > void odp_packet_l4_chksum_insert(odp_packet_t pkt, int l4); > > What is the expected behavior is checksum is

Re: [lng-odp] Latest odp_ipsec_sa_disable() discussion and proposed resolution

van Leeuwen* > Senior IC Design Engineer > > Tel. : +31 (0)73 65 81 900 > > > www.insidesecure.com > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY - This e-mail and any attachments hereto are intended only > for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential > informa

Re: [lng-odp] Latest odp_ipsec_sa_disable() discussion and proposed resolution

mediately and do not disclose the contents to any person, use it for any > purpose, or store or copy the information on any medium. Please permanently > delete the original copy of this e-mail and/or any attachments thereto and > any printout thereof. Thank you. > > > &g

[lng-odp] Latest odp_ipsec_sa_disable() discussion and proposed resolution

We discussed this during the ODP public call today and had the benefit of Pascal Van Leeuwen's participation. Pascal is a HW guy and explained some of the issues that HW IPsec support faces. HW recognizes an active SA by it being in a HW lookup table. From an ODP implementation perspective,

Re: [lng-odp] [Linaro/odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1] api: pool subparameters (#234)

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > From: Bill Fischofer [mailto:notificati...@github.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:20 AM > To: Linaro/odp <o...@noreply.github.com> > Cc: Savol

Re: [lng-odp] [Linaro/odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1] api: pool subparameters (#234)

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> typedef struct odp_pool_param_t { >> /** Pool type */ >> @@ -192,17 +193,34 @@ typedef struct odp_pool_param_t { >> >> /** Parameters for packet pools */ >>

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1 1/8] api: pool: relax packet pool param num

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Github ODP bot wrote: > From: Petri Savolainen > > Added packet pool parameter 'max_num', so that 'num' parameter > can be round up by the implementation. Most implementations have > a fixed segment size, and need

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1 5/8] api: pool: remove union from params

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Github ODP bot wrote: > From: Petri Savolainen > > Remove anonymous union from pool parameter structure. > Union makes it impossible to initialize parameters per > pool type (use other values than all zeros). This

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1 2/8] api: pool: add packet pool subparameters

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Github ODP bot wrote: > From: Petri Savolainen > > Additional packet length and number specification gives > more information to implementation about intended packet > length distribution in the pool. This enables

[lng-odp] Moving scalable scheduler to master

I've looked over the code and the biggest issue surrounds the use of #ifdefs in open code. The issue is that the scheduler behaves significantly different based on whether it's running on AArch64 vs. other architectures. This means that code coverage is dependent on the target platform. >From a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >