From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] app/testpmd: add missing transmit errors
	stats
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:38:59 +0100
Message-ID: <6177115.1iB7W0vHcD@xps>
References: <1550158972-21895-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com>
 <CAJFAV8wzk+DmkK7AoRJ47GZbrtsYK9uXOWC4_4riYmV3c9MSew@mail.gmail.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258012413A4D8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Lu,
 Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoqueli@redhat.com>, "Yigit,
 Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19AD71B4CF
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:39:07 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258012413A4D8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

15/02/2019 19:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> >>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of David Marchand
> >>> I am also for option 2 especially because of this.
> >>> A driver that refuses a packet for reason X (which is a limitation, or an
> >>> incorrect config or whatever that is not a transient condition) but gives
> >>> it back to the application is a bad driver.
> 
> >>Why? What.s wrong to leave it to the upper layer to decide what to
> >>do with the packets that can't be sent (by one reason or another)?
> 
> >How does the upper layer know if this is a transient state or something that can't be resolved?
> 
> Via rte_errno, for example.

rte_errno is not a result per packet.
I think it is better to "eat" the packet
as it is done for those transmitted to the HW.