[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] net/softnic: sw fall-back for traffic management

[Thomas Monjalon]

05/07/2017 11:32, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:48 AM
> > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>; Yigit,
> > Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> > Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran at cavium.com; Lu, Wenzhuo
> > <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; techboard at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] net/softnic: sw fall-back for traffic
> > management
> > 
> > 08/06/2017 18:43, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> > > <snip> ...
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure I'm missing something.
> > > > In my understanding, we do not need to change the ops:
> > > > 	- if the device offers the capability, let's call the ops
> > > > 	- else call the software fallback function
> > > >
> > >
> > > What you might be missing is the observation that the approach you're
> > describing requires changing each and every PMD. The changes are also
> > intrusive: need to change the ops that need the SW fall-back patching, also
> > need to change the private data of each PMD (as assigned to the opaque
> > dev->data->dev_private) to add the context data needed by the patched
> > ops. Therefore, this approach is a no-go.
> > >
> > > We are looking for a generic approach that can gracefully and transparently
> > work with any PMD.
> > 
> > Nobody is participating in this discussion.
> > Can we discuss how to proceed in the technical board meeting?
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> We are working to finalize a new version of the Soft NIC PMD which has a much simplified/straightforward design (we'll explain in the cover letter). We expect to send it in the next few days, hopefully we can target RC2.

Thanks for continuing to work on it.
We will probably avoid a last minute integration of this new design in 17.08.
So it could become a priority topic for 17.11.

> I propose you take another look at this version and then decide if we need TB involvement or not?

OK, let's wait this version.