From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/mlx5: add hardware timestamp Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:01:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20170824140144.GN4544@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> References: <1503409570-9946-3-git-send-email-rasland@mellanox.com> <1503560793-21597-1-git-send-email-rasland@mellanox.com> <1503560793-21597-3-git-send-email-rasland@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: thomas@monjalon.net, jingjing.wu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com To: Raslan Darawsheh Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDB27CC0 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:01:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 6so2732071wrp.2 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1503560793-21597-3-git-send-email-rasland@mellanox.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:46:33AM +0300, Raslan Darawsheh wrote: > Expose a new capapilty of Rx hw timestamp and > added new device args to enable it hw_timestamp. > It will add the raw hw timestamp into the packets. > > Its expected that it will lower down the performance since using it > will disable the cqe comprission, and will add extra checkes in > the vec rx path. > > Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh > --- > doc/guides/nics/mlx5.rst | 5 +++++ > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.h | 1 + > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c | 3 ++- > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxq.c | 3 +++ > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 5 +++++ > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.h | 3 ++- > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx_vec_sse.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > 8 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) It is strange to enable/disable this single offload again the application request. Why do you need such behavior? Another point I don't seen any code to retrieve this offloads request from the port configuration as for the others. It is expected in the new revision? Thanks, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND