[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads API

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:46:50 +0000
> From: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> CC: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>, Thomas Monjalon
>  <thomas at monjalon.net>, "dev at dpdk.org" <dev at dpdk.org>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
>  API
> 
> Monday, September 11, 2017 11:06 AM, Jerin Jacob:
> > >
> > > I don't understand.
> > > From the exact link above, you explicitly say that *you* will move this flags
> > once the series is integrated. Quoting:
> > >
> > > "
> > > > Please Jerin, could you work on moving these settings in a new API?
> > >
> > > Sure. Once the generic code is in place. We are committed to fix the
> > > PMDs by 18.02.
> > 
> > Yes. I will take care of the PMD(nicvf) side of the changes. Not in ethdev or
> > mempool. Meaning, you need to decide how you are going to expose the
> > equivalent of these flags and enable the generic code for those flags in
> > ethdev or mempool. The drivers side of changes I can take care.
> > 
> 
> How about doing it a PMD option? 
> Seems like nicvf is the only PMD which care about them.

Lets take flag by flag:
ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP - I think, this should be removed. But we can have
common code in ethdev pmd to detect all pool being configured from on the same pool
as on the rx_configure() application passes the mempool.

ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT: This one has i40e and nicvf consumers.
And it is driven by the use case too. So it should available in some
form.

> 
> If there will be more PMDs later, we can think about which API is needed.  
>