[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters

[Shreyansh Jain]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:33 PM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>
> Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Horton, Remy
> <remy.horton at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Zhang, Qi
> Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing at intel.com>; Thomas
> Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-
> tuned Tx/Rx parameters
> 
> On 3/21/2018 6:51 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 3/16/2018 1:54 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Ferruh Yigit
> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >

[...]

> >>>
> >>> C) Unlike the original proposal, this would add two separate members
> >>> to rte_eth_dev_info - one each for Rx and Tx. They both are still
> >>> expected to be populated through the info_get() implementation but
> not
> >>> by lib_eal.
> >>> IMO, doesn't matter.
> >>
> >> There won't be new members, which ones are you talking about?
> >
> > original proposal: (ignore change of names, please)
> >
> >  rte_eth_dev_preferred_info {
> >      rx_burst_size
> >      tx_burst_size
> >      rx_ring_size
> >      tx_ring_size
> >      ...
> >   }
> >
> > And this is what I think last few comments intended:
> >
> >  rte_eth_rxpreferred {
> >    ...
> >    rx_burst_size
> >    rx_ring_size
> >    ...
> >  }
> >
> >  rte_eth_txpreferred {
> >    ...
> >    tx_burst_size
> >    tx_ring_size
> >    ...
> >  }
> >
> > both the above added rte_eth_dev_info{}
> >
> > This is what I meant when I stated "...this would add two separate
> > members to rte_eth_dev_info - one each for Rx and Tx..."
> 
> Got it. I don't have any strong opinion on adding single struct or two
> (one for
> Rx and one for Tx).
> Since these will be public structs, do you think will there be any
> difference
> from ABI stability point of view?

No. It was just an observation. To me, it doesn't matter which approach is selected.

-
Shreyansh