Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] ethdev: enhance the API for getting burst mode information

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

02/11/2019 07:55, Liu, Yu Y:
> Add Damjan from FD.io for awareness...
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Long time no see. Sorry I use outlook which is not friendly to community email.
> 
> >Anyway I will propose to replace this API in the next release.
> Will your plan be affected by API/ABI stable plan? 

The API is experimental, so it can be changed later.

> BTW, if you propose new change in next release, it will make DPDK consumer(FD.io) to change again.

Yes I agree it is not nice.

> So even if it is not affected to the API/ABI stable plan, do we still have time to get a solution for everyone in DPDK 19.11 with your contribution/acceleration?

Yes we have time.
But you insist on an API without any good justification.

> > I suspect a real hidden issue in Intel CPUs that you try to mitigate.
> Please be rest assured it is not the case. 
> This request is just from one FD.io project internal bug " tx/rx burst function is shown as nil" reported by Chenmin. 
> My understanding is DPDK behavior was taken as bug for someone in FD.io project and potentially will mislead other DPDK consumer. 
> Haiyue is working with Chenmin to address the issue and with your support it will be even better.
> 
> Your support will be highly appreciated!

I already said what I consider to be good: a simple string.
Of course I may be wrong, that's why I asked questions.
But half of the questions are just ignored.

If you want to progress, please reply to the questions asked by Slava in this thread.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Wang, Haiyue
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 
> > Thank you for trying to address comments done late.
> > 
> > 31/10/2019 18:11, Haiyue Wang:
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> 
> 
> > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_ALTIVEC       (1ULL << 2)
> > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_NEON          (1ULL << 3)
> > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_SSE           (1ULL << 4)
> > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_AVX2          (1ULL << 5)
> > > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_AVX512        (1ULL << 6)
> > 
> > Of course, I still believe that giving a special treatment to vector 
> > instructions is wrong.
> > You did not justify why it needs to be defined in bits instead of 
> > string. I am not asking again because anyway you don't really reply. I 
> > think you are executing an order you received and I don't want to 
> > blame you more.
> > I suspect a real hidden issue in Intel CPUs that you try to mitigate.
> > No need to reply to this comment.
> > Anyway I will propose to replace this API in the next release.
> 
> Never mind, if this design is truly ugly, drop it all now. I also prefer to do the best, that's why open source is amazing, thanks! ;-)