[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/6] net/mlx5: add Rx buffer split support

[Slava Ovsiienko]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 15:10
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland at nvidia.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Matan Azrad
> <matan at nvidia.com>; Alexander Kozyrev <akozyrev at nvidia.com>; Ori Kam
> <orika at nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/6] net/mlx5: add Rx buffer split support
> 
> On 10/27/2020 7:05 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 13:05
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >> <rasland at nvidia.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Matan Azrad
> >> <matan at nvidia.com>; Alexander Kozyrev <akozyrev at nvidia.com>; Ori Kam
> >> <orika at nvidia.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/6] net/mlx5: add Rx buffer split
> >> support
> >>
[..snip..]
> >>>>
> >>>> The feature was references with different name in each commit, I
> >>>> tried to unify it as "Rx buffer split" in next-net.
> >>>> Can you please double check the updated commit log/titles?
> >>>
> >>>>> 	doc: add Rx buffer split limitation to mlx5 guide
> >>>>> 	net/mlx5: report Rx buffer split capabilities
> >>> OK about above.
> >>>
> >>>>> 	net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split
> >>> It would be better: "net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split on datapath
> >>>
> >>
> >> Isn't the supporting the "Rx buffer split" mean supporting it on the
> >> datapath, where else it can be supported, the "on datapath" looks
> redundant to me.
> >
> > Options for possible "support Buffer Split" meaning:
> > - generic PMD configuration
> > - queue configuration
> > - reporting caps
> > - datapath
> >
> > The series is split for commits those updating the very specific parts in PMD.
> > We may drop this specifics but we would lose the series split meaning.
> > Sure, the entire series is about "support Rx buffer split", but each
> > commit has its own clarification in the headline.
> >
> >>
> >>>>> 	net/mlx5: register multiple pool for Rx queue
> >>> OK
> >>>
> >>>>> 	net/mlx5: configure Rx buffer split
> >>> It would be better: "net/mlx5: configure Rx queue for buffer split"
> >>>
> >>
> >> Like above, isn't the configure "Rx buffer split" mean configuring Rx
> >> queue for it, "Rx queue" looks redundant to me.
> > It just emphasizes - "the queue object is configured in this specific
> > commit", it would be easier to find this point and understand what it is in the
> long git log.
> > Hence, in my opinion, "queue" is some kind of extra clue, we should not drop
> it.
> >
> >> For both above, if you have strong opinion to update them, I can. But
> >> I prefer shorter versions.
> >>
> >
> >>>>> 	net/mlx5: receive Rx buffer split description
> >>> IMO, it would be better: "net/mlx5: handle Rx buffer split description"
> >>> or
> >>> "net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split description"
> >>>
> >>
> >> OK to use "net/mlx5: support Rx buffer split description"
> >>
> > Please, see dpdk-next-net-mlx - Raslan updated the subtree, addressing
> > the hotfix and yours and mine comments.
> >
> 
> What to see in the sub-tree?
> Making changes is easy, the essence is discussion and reaching into a
> consensus, which is what I am trying to do, without a consensus what is the
> point of updating it in the mlx sub-tree?

Mmm, I hoped we got consensus, I agreed with you - the feature should be
named in the same fashion in the commits and, in the same time, we would like
to emphasize some commit specifics. I just tried to save your efforts with taking prepared
commits from sub-tree. The patches are exactly the same, only headlines are updated.
What, in your opinion, should be the next step? Do you mean we should send
an updated version with updated headlines to the mailing list?

With best regards, Slava