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

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 09/12/2017 05:36 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:26:38 +0000
>> From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
>> To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>, Shahaf Shuler
>>   <shahafs at mellanox.com>, 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>, "Zhang, Helin"
>>   <helin.zhang at intel.com>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu at intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
>>   API
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko [mailto:arybchenko at solarflare.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:28 AM
>>> To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Thomas Monjalon
>>> <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev at dpdk.org; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads API
>>>
>>> On 09/12/2017 11:03 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>> OK, well understood the requirement for such flags. Thanks for your replies.
>>>>
>>>> I think that for simplicity I will add two more flags on the Tx offloads capabilities:
>>>>
>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOADS _MULTI_MEMPOOL <** Device supports transmission of mbufs from multiple mempools. */
>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOADS_INDIRECT_MBUFS <** Device support transmission of indirect mbufs. */
>>> Indirect mbufs is just an example when reference counters are required.
>>> Direct mbufs may use reference counters as well.
>> Personally, I still in favor to move these 2 flags away from TX_OFFLOADS.
>> But if people think it would be really helpfull to keep them, should we have then:
>> DEV_TX_OFFLOADS_FAST_FREE (or whatever then name will be) -
>> it would mean the same what (NOMULTIMEMP | NOREFCOUNT) means now.
> I am not too concerned about name. Yes. it should mean exiting (NOMULTIMEMP |
> NOREFCOUNT)

Merging these two flags together is OK for me as well.