From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new offloads API Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:50:08 +0200 Message-ID: <2131636.uY0WNycdMN@xps> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F246819@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , dev@dpdk.org To: Shahaf Shuler Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1FF2BF3 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 15:50:10 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/09/2017 12:51, Shahaf Shuler: > So looks like we all agree PMDs should report as part of the rte_eth_dev_info_get which offloads are per port and which are per queue. > > Regarding the offloads configuration by application I see 2 options: > 1. have an API to set offloads per port as part of device configure and API to set offloads per queue as part of queue setup > 2. set all offloads as part of queue configuration (per port offloads will be set equally for all queues). In case of a mixed configuration for port offloads PMD will return error. > Such error can be reported on device start. The PMD will traverse the queues and check for conflicts. > > I will focus on the cons, since both achieve the goal: > > Cons of #1: > - Two places to configure offloads. > - Like Thomas mentioned - what about offloads per device? This direction leads to more places to configure the offloads. > > Cons of #2: > - Late error reporting - on device start and not on queue setup. Why not reporting error on queue setup? > I would go with #2. I vote also for #2