Hi, Ferruh > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:34 > To: Slava Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split > [..snip..] > > Can you please update deprecation notice too, to remove the notice? > Yes, I missed the point, thank you for noticing.
> > 5 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > > b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst index dd8c955..a45a9e8 100644 > > --- a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > > +* **[implements] rte_eth_dev_data**: ``buffer_split``. > > What is implemented here? > none, removed. > > +* **[provides] rte_eth_dev_info**: > ``rx_offload_capa:RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT``. > > +* **[provides] eth_dev_ops**: ``rxq_info_get:buffer_split``. > > Is this correct? Yes, the dedicated rx_burst routine supporting buffer split might be engaged by PMD and might be reported via rxq_info_get(). > > + rx_seg = &seg_single; > > + n_seg = 1; > > Why setting 'rx_seg' & 'n_seg'? Why not leaving them NULL and 0 when not > used? > This was PMD can do NULL/0 check and can know they are not used. Refactored, single pool (legacy) and new extended config check are separated into dedicated branches. > > - rte_ethdev_trace_rxq_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id, nb_rx_desc, mp, > > - rx_conf, ret); > > Is this removed intentionally? > Missed statement, reverted back. [..snip..] Comments and descriptions rearranged and updated according to the comments, v6 is coming. With best regards, Slava
