-----Original Message-----
From: Yigit, Ferruh
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:43 PM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <redacted>; Shahaf Shuler <redacted>; Thomas Monjalon
[off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new offloads API

On 8/30/2017 11:16 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:

quoted

Hi Ferruh,

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Yigit, Ferruh
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 8:51 AM
To: Shahaf Shuler <redacted>; Thomas Monjalon <redacted>; Ananyev, Konstantin
[off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new offloads API

On 8/30/2017 7:30 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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.

tx_prepare() is a little different, since it was not clear if all PMDs
needs updating that is why asked to PMD owners, and the ones requires
updating already has been updated with ethdev patch. Here we know all
PMDs need updating, and they need proper time in advance.

quoted

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.

I think it is good idea to update samples/apps to new method, but this
can be short notice for PMD owners.

Can we wait one more release to update samples/apps, to give time for
PMDs to be updated, since old applications will work with new PMDs
(thanks to your helpers), I believe this won't be a problem.

I am not sure what is your suggestion here?
Support both flavors of PMD API for 17.11?

Support both with an exception, when application uses new method but PMD
uses old one, throw an error (because of above discussed technical issue).

This lets existing applications run without problem, and pushes PMDs to
adapt new method.

Your suggestion to have only new method and convert all PMDs to new
method is good, but I am not sure if this is realistic for this release,
since different PMDs have different pace for updates.

ethdev updates can be done in this release, with the PMDs that already
changed to new method. The sample/app modifications Shahaf mentioned can
be done in the beginning of the next release, and this gives time to
remaining PMDs until end of next release. What do you think?

If it is just a timing concern - can we probably request PMD maintainers at least to:
- review the proposed new API and object if they have any concerns
- provide an estimation - how long it would take to adopt a new one
let say in a week time?
Then we could make a final decision - do things in one go, or prolong the pain for 2 releases.
Konstantin

quoted

Konstantin

quoted

quoted

Any objection to this approach?