From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ethdev: add capability control API Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:56:54 +0100 Message-ID: <6779658.J26ZzuZ3zA@xps13> References: <1488589820-206947-1-git-send-email-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> <20170306125425.51b6455b@xeon-e3> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265275B5BA@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "Wiles, Keith" , dev@dpdk.org, "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" , "balasubramanian.manoharan@cavium.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com (mail-wr0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D6D914 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:56:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id u48so725768wrc.0 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:56:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891265275B5BA@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2017-03-07 10:14, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 20:41:27 +0000 > > "Wiles, Keith" wrote: > > > > > Being able to add features without having to change DPDK maybe a strong > > feature for companies that have special needs for its application. They just > > need to add a rte_eth_capability enum in a range that they want to control > > (which does not mean they need to change the above structure) and they > > can provide private features to the application especially if they are very > > specific features to some HW. I do not like private features, but I also do not > > want to stick just any old API in DPDK for any given special feature. > > > > > > I understand why you make that argument, but in practice it doesn't work > > that way. > > When new features get added to DPDK, then the application must request > > those features through configration and other > > API's. Therefore building everything into eth_dev doesn't seem to be > > helpful. > > Stephen, I think we are all aligned here. Question is: do you want the application to discover the supported capabilities through a standard API or do you want each capability to provide its own specific discovery mechanism (if any)? This patch proposes a standard API. Just a precision: A function with a void* parameter is not a fully defined API. We still need to know how to interpret the void* in each case.