From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:02:01 +0200
Message-ID: <2078955.d1Aiqtukxu@xps13>
References: <1477327917-18564-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <1499338.8Le0ABsxDG@xps13>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CD83D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA4728FD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:02:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n67so54575559wme.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0CD83D@irsmsx105.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>

2016-10-27 15:52, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Tomasz,
> > 
> > This is a major new function in the API and I still have some comments.
> > 
> > 2016-10-26 14:56, Tomasz Kulasek:
> > > --- a/config/common_base
> > > +++ b/config/common_base
> > > +CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP=y
> > 
> > We cannot enable it until it is implemented in every drivers.
> 
> Not sure why?
> If tx_pkt_prep == NULL, then rte_eth_tx_prep() would just act as noop.
> Right now it is not mandatory for the PMD to implement it.

If it is not implemented, the application must do the preparation by itself.
>>From patch 6:
"
Removed pseudo header calculation for udp/tcp/tso packets from
application and used Tx preparation API for packet preparation and
verification.
"
So how does it behave with other drivers?

> > >  struct rte_eth_dev {
> > >  	eth_rx_burst_t rx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD receive function. */
> > >  	eth_tx_burst_t tx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit function. */
> > > +	eth_tx_prep_t tx_pkt_prep; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit prepare function. */
> > >  	struct rte_eth_dev_data *data;  /**< Pointer to device data */
> > >  	const struct eth_driver *driver;/**< Driver for this device */
> > >  	const struct eth_dev_ops *dev_ops; /**< Functions exported by PMD */
> > 
> > Could you confirm why tx_pkt_prep is not in dev_ops?
> > I guess we want to have several implementations?
> 
> Yes, it depends on configuration options, same as tx_pkt_burst.
> 
> > 
> > Shouldn't we have a const struct control_dev_ops and a struct datapath_dev_ops?
> 
> That's probably a good idea, but I suppose it is out of scope for that patch.

No it's not out of scope.
It answers to the question "why is it added in this structure and not dev_ops".
We won't do this change when nothing else is changed in the struct.