Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

13/10/2020 23:59, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/12/2020 10:56 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > We have two approaches how to specify multiple segments to split Rx packets:
> > 1. update queue configuration structure
> > 2. introduce new rx_queue_setup_ex() routine with extra parameters.
> > 
> > For [1] my only actual dislike is that we would have multiple places to specify
> > the pool - in rx_queue_setup() and in the config structure. So, we should
> > implement some checking (if we have offload flag set we should check
> > whether mp parameter is NULL and segment descriptions array pointer/size
> > is provided, if no offload flag set - we must check the description array is empty).
> > 
> >> @Thomas, @Ferruh: I'd like to hear what other ethdev maintainers think
> >> about it.
> > 
> > Yes, it would be very nice to hear extra opinions. Do we think the providing
> > of extra API function is worse than extending existing structure, introducing
> > some conditional ambiguity and complicating the parameter compliance
> > check?
> 
> I think decision was given with the deprecation notice which already says 
> ``rte_eth_rxconf`` will be updated for this.
> 
> With new API, we need to create a new dev_ops too, not sure about creating a new 
> dev_ops for a single PMD.

You should not view it as a feature for a single PMD.
Yes, as always, it starts with only one PMD implementing the API,
but I really think this feature is generic and multiple NICs
will be able to support this offload.


> For the PMD that supports this feature will need two dev_ops that is fairly 
> close to each other, as Andrew mentioned this is a duplication.
> 
> And from user perspective two setup functions with overlaps can be confusing.
> 
> +1 to having single setup function but update the config, and I can see v5 sent 
> this way, I will check it.
> 
> 
> > Now I'm updating the existing version on the patch based on rx_queue_ex()
> > and then could prepare the version for configuration structure,
> > it is not a problem - approaches are very similar, we just should choose
> > the most relevant one.
> > 
> > With best regards, Slava