From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] examples: example showing use of
	callbacks.
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:33:40 +0100
Message-ID: <54E1FFC4.1060605@6wind.com>
References: <1419266844-4848-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <1423841989-9090-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com>
 <1423841989-9090-4-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: John McNamara <john.mcnamara-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1423841989-9090-4-git-send-email-john.mcnamara-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

Hi John,

On 02/13/2015 04:39 PM, John McNamara wrote:
> From: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> Example showing how callbacks can be used to insert a timestamp
> into each packet on RX. On TX the timestamp is used to calculate
> the packet latency through the app, in cycles.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>


I'm looking at the example and I don't understand what is the advantage
of having callbacks in ethdev layer, knowing that the application can
do the same job by a standard function call.

What is the advantage of having callbacks compared to:


for (port = 0; port < nb_ports; port++) {
	struct rte_mbuf *bufs[BURST_SIZE];
	const uint16_t nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(port, 0,
			bufs, BURST_SIZE);
	if (unlikely(nb_rx == 0))
		continue;
	add_timestamp(bufs, nb_rx);

	const uint16_t nb_tx = rte_eth_tx_burst(port ^ 1, 0,
			bufs, nb_rx);
	calc_latency(bufs, nb_tx);

	if (unlikely(nb_tx < nb_rx)) {
		uint16_t buf;
		for (buf = nb_tx; buf < nb_rx; buf++)
			rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[buf]);
	}
}


To me, doing like the code above has several advantages:

- code is more readable: the callback is explicitly invoked, so there is
  no risk to forget it
- code is faster: the functions calls can be inlined by the compiler
- easier to handle error cases in the callback function as the error
  code is accessible to the application
- there is no need to add code in ethdev api to do this
- if the application does not want to use callbacks (I suppose most
  applications), it won't have any performance impact

Regards,
Olivier