[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 10/10] doc: add mempool and octeontx mempool device
thomas at monjalon.net
Mon Oct 9 10:48:00 CEST 2017
09/10/2017 07:46, santosh:
> On Monday 09 October 2017 10:31 AM, santosh wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > On Sunday 08 October 2017 10:13 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 08/10/2017 14:40, Santosh Shukla:
> >>> This commit adds a section to the docs listing the mempool
> >>> device PMDs available.
> >> It is confusing to add a mempool guide, given that we already have
> >> a mempool section in the programmer's guide:
> >> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/mempool_lib.html
> >> And we will probably need also some doc for bus drivers.
> >> I think it would be more interesting to create a platform guide
> >> where you can describe the bus and the mempool.
> >> OK for doc/guides/platform/octeontx.rst ?
> > No Strong opinion,
> > But IMO, purpose of introducing mempool PMD was inspired from
> > eventdev, Which I find pretty organized.
> > Yes, we have mempool_lib guide but that is more about common mempool
> > layer details like api, structure layout etc.. I wanted
> > to add guide which tells about mempool PMD's and their capability
> > if any, thats why included octeontx as strarter and was thinking
> > that other external-mempool PMDs like dpaa/dpaa2 , sw ring pmd may come
> > later.
Yes sure it is interesting.
The question is to know if mempool drivers make sense in their own guide
or if it's better to group them with all related platform specifics.
> > If above said does not make sense then will follow Thomas proposition
> > and propose a patch.
> > Thoughts?
> Additional input:
> mempool PMD logically can work across nics.. could be a reason
> to not to mention under platform/octeontx or platform/dpaa ..etc..
I don't understand. OcteonTx mempool works only on OcteonTX?
Are you saying that OcteonTX can be managed as a device?
> IMO, Its worth adding a new section for mempool PMD.
> >> I choose to integrate this series without this last patch.
> >> I mark this patch as rejected.
> >> Please submit a new one separately.
> >>> It then adds the octeontx fpavf mempool PMD to the listed mempool
> >>> devices.
> >>> Cc: John McNamara <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla at caviumnetworks.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: John McNamara <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >> [...]
> >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >>> @@ -340,6 +340,13 @@ F: drivers/net/liquidio/
> >>> F: doc/guides/nics/liquidio.rst
> >>> F: doc/guides/nics/features/liquidio.ini
> >>> +Cavium Octeontx Mempool
> >>> +M: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla at caviumnetworks.com>
> >>> +M: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> >>> +F: drivers/mempool/octeontx
> >> A slash is missing at the end of the directory.
> >> Until now, the mempool and bus drivers are listed with net drivers.
> >> We could move them in a platform section later.
> >> For now, let's put it as "Cavium OcteonTX" in net drivers.
> >> I fixed and merged it with the first patch.
> > Thanks.
> > IMO, for MAINTAINERS file:
> > Just like we have entry for "Eventdev Driver" and underneath
> > to that- all vendor specific PMD sits, I was thinking to
> > introduce "Mempool Drivers" such that we place all
> > external mempool PMDs + s/w PMD (example: Ring) sits underneath.
> > thoughts?
No need to move SW mempool drivers in a different section.
They are maintained by Olivier with the mempool core code.
I have the feeling that all platform specific stuff
(bus, mempool, makefile and config file) are maintained by
the same persons.
I think it is easier to know who contact for issues with a platform.
More information about the dev