On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 23:31:34 +0200 Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 16/09/2025 23:14, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 18:12:05 +0300 > > Shani Peretz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > record operations on mbufs when it is allocated > > > and released inside the mlx5 PMD. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shani Peretz <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > If you are adding this to one driver, it means it should be > > done to all drivers. Which means it is creating lots of churn > > and testing. > > Why a new feature should be applied to all drivers? > We never force a new feature to be implemented by all, > it is impossible to do. It should at least be a reasonable subset of drivers. Doing it for only one device makes it much less usable. At a minimum need to cover the drivers that are commonly used and part of the CI test structure. It really isn't that hard for this history stuff to find where to put a few calls. Also the obvious ones like null, ring, and any demo skeleton code. > > > For me, this amount of churn and #ifdef is not worth it. > > I agree we could avoid the #ifdef with a dummy function > which would be optimized out by the compiler. > > > Think of a better way using some other mechanism. > > Except avoiding the #ifdef, I don't see what better to do > for tracking what the driver is doing with mbufs. Tx and Rx burst could do one marking step.
