From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:36:31 +0530
Message-ID: <20160919160630.GA18610@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1472228578-6980-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <1473691487-10032-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <1473691487-10032-2-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0B583F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <3042915272161B4EB253DA4D77EB373A14F1A294@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
 <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "Kulasek, TomaszX" <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bn3nam01on0063.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.63])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9123329D1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 18:06:56 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3042915272161B4EB253DA4D77EB373A14F1A294@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:29:07PM +0000, Kulasek, TomaszX wrote:
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 15:03
> > To: Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation
> > 
> > Hi Tomasz,
> > 
> > >
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP
> > 
> > Sorry for being a bit late on that discussion, but what the point of
> > having that config macro (RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP ) at all?
> > As I can see right now, if driver doesn't setup tx_pkt_prep, then nb_pkts
> > would be return anyway...
> > 
> > BTW, there is my another question - should it be that way?
> > Shouldn't we return 0 (and set rte_errno=ENOTSUP) here if dev->tx_pk_prep
> > == NULL?
> > 
> 
> It's an answer to the Jerin's request discussed here: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/046437.html
> 
> When driver doesn't support tx_prep, default behavior is "we don't know requirements, so we have nothing to do here". It will simplify application logic and improve performance for these drivers, I think. Catching this error with every burst may be problematic.
> 
> As for RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP macro, suggested by Jerin in the same thread, I still don't think It's the best solution of the problem described by him. I have added it here for further discussion.
> 
> Jerin, have you something to add?

Nothing very specific to add here. I think, I have tried to share the rational in,
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/046437.html

> 
> Tomasz.