From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] examples/ip_reassembly: add
	parse-ptype option
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:45:56 +0200
Message-ID: <2707753.Svae6e0B9N@xps13>
References: <1485156509-4919-1-git-send-email-yong.liu@intel.com>
 <2819058.cfIqcf5N9Z@xps13>
 <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E62D5E3E2@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: "Liu, Yong" <yong.liu@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f174.google.com (mail-wr0-f174.google.com
 [209.85.128.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97110326B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  4 Apr 2017 14:45:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wr0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w43so212744156wrb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 05:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E62D5E3E2@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2017-02-10 09:02, Liu, Yong:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2017-02-10 07:53, Liu, Yong:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon
> > > > 2017-02-09 22:25, Marvin Liu:
> > > > > Add new option parse-ptype in this sample in case of pmd driver
> > > > > not provide packet type info. If this option enabled, packet type
> > > > > will be analyzed in Rx callback function.
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +		if (parse_ptype) {
> > > > > +			if (add_cb_parse_ptype(portid, queueid) < 0)
> > > > > +				rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > > > +					"Fail to add ptype cb\n");
> > > > > +		} else if (!check_ptype(portid))
> > > > > +			rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > > > +				"PMD can not provide needed ptypes\n");
> > > >
> > > > Instead of adding a new option, why not adding the callback
> > automatically
> > > > if the packet type is not supported by the hardware?
> > >
> > > Thomas,
> > > We want to let user choice which kind of method for packet type parsing.
> > > If start application with parse-type option, is meaning user want to use
> > software parsing otherwise will use hardware parsing.
> > 
> > I do not understand why this user choice matters.
> > If it is available, hardware ptype is better, isn't it?
> > It it is not available, we need to be aware of this specific issue,
> > otherwise we have the error "PMD can not provide needed ptypes"
> > (without suggesting to use the option).
> 
> Yes, hardware always has better performance than software. I think it matters in some performance measurement scenarios. 
> Like l3fwd, we compared performance with software and hardware packet parsers and this option may not have much value in other samples.
> I will rework this patch and fallback to software if hardware not support.	

The ip_fragmentation case has been reworked this way:
	http://dpdk.org/patch/21769