From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 17:53:44 +0200
Message-ID: <3164302.jtqUZe9MAY@xps>
References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps>
 <DB7PR05MB4426EAEB061126D7A4C1F24FC3A70@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Shijith Thotton <shijith.thotton@cavium.com>,
 Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
 John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>,
 Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, Tomasz Duszynski <tdu@semihalf.com>,
 Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@arm.com>,
 Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>,
 Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
 Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
 Harish Patil <harish.patil@cavium.c
To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37062AACE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  2 Apr 2018 18:51:40 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR05MB4426EAEB061126D7A4C1F24FC3A70@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

01/04/2018 06:44, Shahaf Shuler:
> > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities:
> > 	rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa
> > 	rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa
> > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, i.e. every queue
> > capabilities must be reported as port capabilities.
> > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level only if it can be
> > applied to a specific queue.
> > 
> > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)?
> 
> No. 
> 
> The documentation should describe the API from the application side, and not provide guidelines for the PMDs implementation. 
> If missing, we should clarify more about what queue and port offload means. Something like:
> "When port offload is enabled, the offload applies on the port along with all of its associated queues"  and
> "When queue offload is enabled the offload, the offload applies only on the specific queue."
> 
> The PMDs then will decide how they report the different offloads they offer. 

I don't understand why you want to be free in capabilities implementation.
If the capabilities are not strictly standardized, how can they be used
by the application?

Rewording from application point of view:

All the offload capabilities (port-level and queue-level) are reported in rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa.
The offloads reported in rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa can be applied to a specific queue.

Is it OK?