From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for rte_eth_dev structure Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:01:11 +0200 Message-ID: <2192482.DY91PqGyRQ@xps13> References: <1469024691-58750-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Tomasz Kulasek Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D832B9D for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:01:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id o80so73311146wme.1 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1469024691-58750-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, This patch announces an interesting change in the DPDK design. 2016-07-20 16:24, Tomasz Kulasek: > This is an ABI deprecation notice for DPDK 16.11 in librte_ether about > changes in rte_eth_dev and rte_eth_desc_lim structures. > > In 16.11, we plan to introduce rte_eth_tx_prep() function to do > necessary preparations of packet burst to be safely transmitted on > device for desired HW offloads (set/reset checksum field according to > the hardware requirements) and check HW constraints (number of segments > per packet, etc). > > While the limitations and requirements may differ for devices, it > requires to extend rte_eth_dev structure with new function pointer > "tx_pkt_prep" which can be implemented in the driver to prepare and > verify packets, in devices specific way, before burst, what should to > prevent application to send malformed packets. > > Also new fields will be introduced in rte_eth_desc_lim: nb_seg_max and > nb_mtu_seg_max, providing an information about max segments in TSO and > non TSO packets acceptable by device. We cannot acknowledge such notice without a prior design discussion. Please explain why you plan to work on this change and give a draft of the new structures (a RFC patch would be ideal). Thanks