> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:24 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> > Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Jerin > Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>; Shah, Rahul R <rahul.r.shah at > intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; > azelezniak <alexz at att.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF > management > > 2016-09-28 13:26, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > 2016-09-28 11:23, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > If we this way (force user to include driver specific headers and > > > > call driver specific functions), how you guys plan to make this > > > > functionality available for multiple driver types. > > > > > > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features. > > > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs. > > > > > > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would need > > > > similar functionality for i40e. > > > > Does it mean that they'll have to re-implement this part of their code > > > > again? > > > > Or would have to create (and maintain) their own shim layer that would > > > > provide some s of abstraction? > > > > Basically their own version of rte_ethdev? > > > > > > No definitive answer. > > > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which is > > > implemented only in 1 or 2 drivers? If the application tries to use it, > > > we can imagine that a specific range of hardware is expected. > > > > Yes, as I understand, it is a specific subset of supported HW (just Inel > > NICs for now, but different models/drivers). > > Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all HW > > from this subset without rebuilding/implementing the app. > > > > > > > > I think it is an important question. > > > Previously we had the issue of having some API which are too > > > specific and need a rework to be used with other NICs. In order to > > > avoid such rework and API break, we can try to make them available in a > > > driver-specific or vendor-specific staging area, waiting for > a later generalization. > > > > Could you remind me why you guys were that opposed to ioctl style approach? > > It is not my favorite thing either, but it seems pretty generic way to > > handle such situations. > > We prefer having well-defined functions instead of opaque ioctl-style > encoding. > And it was not clear what is the benefit of ioctl. > Now I think I understand you would like to have a common ioctl service for > features available on 2 drivers. Right?
Yes. > Example (trying to read your mind): > rte_ethdev_ioctl(port_id, <TLV encoding VF_PING service and VF id>); > instead of > rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); > rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); > Please confirm I understand what you are thinking about. Yep, you read my mind correctly :) Konstantin
