[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/librte_ether: bypass code cleanup

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > > Hmmm. It's true it is cleaner. But I am not sure having a generic API
> > > for bypass is a good idea at all.
> > > I was thinking to totally remove it.
> >
> > Why to remove it?
> > As I know there are people who use that functionality.
> >
> > > Maybe we can try to have a specific API by including ixgbe_bypass.h in
> > > the application.
> >
> > Hmm, isn't that what we were trying to get rid of in last few years?
> > HW specific stuff?
> 
> Yes exactly.
> I have the feeling the bypass API is specific to ixgbe. Isn't it?

As far as I know, yes.

> 
> As we will probably see other features specific to only one device.
> Instead of adding a function in the generic API, I think it may be
> saner to include a driver header.

But that means use has to make decision based on HW id/type of the device,
the thing we were trying to get rid of in last few releases, no?

> Then if it appears to be used
> in more devices, it can be generalized.
> What do you think of this approach?

We talked few times about introducing sort of ioctl() call, to communicate
about HW specific features.
Might be a bypass I a good candidate to be moved into this ioctl() thing...
But I suppose it's too late for 16.07 to start such big changes.
If you don't like bypass API to be a generic one, my suggestion would be
to leave it as it is for 16.07, and start a discussion what it should look like
for 16.11. 

Konstantin