On 4/5/2019 3:55 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/22/2018 11:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 12/12/2017 11:05, Nikhil Agarwal: >>> Currently, if the rte_eth_rx_burst() function returns a value less than >>> *nb_pkts*, the application will assume that no more packets are present. >>> >>> Some of the hw queue based hardware can only support smaller burst for RX >>> and TX and thus break the expectation of the rx_burst API. >>> >>> This patch adds support to provide the maximum burst size that can be >>> supported by a given PMD. The dev_info is being memset to '0' in >>> rte_ethdev library. The value of '0' indicates that any value for burst >>> size can be supported i.e. no change for existing PMDs. >>> >>> The application can now use the lowest available max_burst_size value >>> for rte_eth_rx_burst. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Agarwal <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> @@ -1047,6 +1047,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_info { >>> /** Configured number of rx/tx queues */ >>> uint16_t nb_rx_queues; /**< Number of RX queues. */ >>> uint16_t nb_tx_queues; /**< Number of TX queues. */ >>> + uint16_t max_burst_size; /**< MAX burst size, 0 for no limit. */ >>> }; >> >> What is the status of this proposal? >> >> Recently, the preferred tuning have been added by >> "ethdev: support PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters" >> http://dpdk.org/commit/3be82f5cc5 > > Hi Nikhil, Hemant, > > PMD returning preferred 'burst_size' support already added, I guess this > patchset is no more valid. I am updating this as rejected. > > If something is missing or there are still some relevant pieces in this patch, > please send as a new version on top of latest head.
As reference, mentioned patches: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/32112/ https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/32113/ https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/32114/
