Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:55 PM, Ferruh Yigit:

quoted

quoted

Considering the re-configuration is risky, and without other ideas I will

need to fall back to the error flow case.

quoted

quoted

Are we OK with that?

I think we can take the risk of keeping this call to
rte_eth_dev_configure() in the middle of rte_eth_rx_queue_setup().
In theory it should be acceptable.
If we merge it soon, it can be better tested with every drivers.

I doubt about taking that risk. Some driver does HW configuration via
configure() and combination of start/stop, setup_queue and configure can
be complex.

I am for generating error for this case.

Generating error also can be good motivation for PMDs to adapt new
method.

Adding Ananyev suggestion from other thread:
For tx_prepare() work, we used the following approach:
1. submitted patch with changes in rte_ethdev and PMDs we  are familiar with (Intel ones).
    For other PMDs - patch contained just minimal changes to make it build cleanly.
2. Asked other PMD maintainers to review rte_ethdev changes and provide a proper patch
    for the PMD they own.

So I am OK with both suggestions. Meaning:
1. Define the case were application use the new offloads API with PMD which supports the old one as an error.
2. apply patches to ethdev with the above behavior.

Just to emphasize, it means that PMDs which won't move to the new API by the end of 17.11 will not be able to run with any of the examples and application on DPDK tree (and also with other applications which moved to the new API), as I plan to submit patches which convert them all to the new API.

Any objection to this approach?