Hi Jerin, > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > > > > > Add new offload flags ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE``, > > ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS`` > > > and ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK``. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > > Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > --- > > > v3 Changes: > > > - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS -> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH (anndrew). > > > > > > v2 Changes: > > > - Reword for clarity. > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > index 37b8592b6..056c5709f 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > @@ -78,3 +78,16 @@ Deprecation Notices > > > to set new power environment if power environment was already > > initialized. > > > In this case the function will return -1 unless the environment is > > > unset > > first > > > (using ``rte_power_unset_env``). Other function usage scenarios will > > > not > > change. > > > + > > > +* ethdev: New offload flags ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE``, > > > +``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH`` > > > + and ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK`` will be added in 19.11. > > > > One question about DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE: > > Does it mean that new ol_flags value (PKT_RX_PTYPE) will be introduced to > > indicate that mbuf.packet_type value is set? > > Or PMD will have to set mbuf.packet_type to zero, when > > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE was not enabled by user? > > I was thinking when DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE is set > - mbuf.packet_type will be valid and mbuf.packet_type will have parsed packet > type. > If not set > - mbuf.packet_type can be anything application should not use > mbuf.packet_type field.
But in that case, we do need a new value for ol_flags, PKT_RX_PTYPE or so, right? > > This will avoid writes 0 to mbuf.packet_type and packet_type parsing if > offload is not set. > > > > If so, what is the advantage? > > Again in that case, would it be more plausible to introduce something like: > > rte_eth_dev_set_supported_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t > > ptype_mask); instead of DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE? > > Any scheme is fine where we can skip the write 0 to mbuf.packet_type and > packet_type parsing > If application is NOT interested in packet_type. > > > Konstantin > > > > > + This will allow application to enable or disable PMDs from updating > > > + ``rte_mbuf`` fields ``rte_mbuf::packet_type``, > > > + ``rte_mbuf::hash::rss`` and ``rte_mbuf::hash::fdir`` respectively. > > > + This scheme will allow PMDs to avoid writes to ``rte_mbuf`` fields > > > + on Rx and thereby improve Rx performance if application wishes do so. > > > + In 19.11 PMDs will still update the fields even when the offloads > > > + are not enabled. > > > + The exact semantics of the flags will be worked out later either by > > > + making them negative offloads to avoid application change or > > > + positive offload to align with existing offload flag semantics. > > > -- > > > 2.17.1
