On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:21:08PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Hi Twei, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bie, Tiwei > > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 7:22 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; Lu, Wenzhuo <[email protected]>; > > Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Ananyev, Konstantin > > <[email protected]>; Zhang, Helin > > <[email protected]>; Dai, Wei <[email protected]>; Wang, Xiao W > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for PMD-specific > > API > > > > Reserve a Tx capability flag and a Rx capability flag, that can be > > used by PMD to define its own capability flags when implementing the > > PMD-specific API. > > > > Suggested-by: Adrien Mazarguil <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Wenzhuo Lu <[email protected]> > > --- > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > index d465825..8800b39 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > @@ -857,6 +857,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf { > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO 0x00000010 > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_QINQ_STRIP 0x00000020 > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM 0x00000040 > > +#define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 0x00000080 /**< Used for PMD-specific > > API. */ > > > > /** > > * TX offload capabilities of a device. > > @@ -874,6 +875,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf { > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GRE_TNL_TSO 0x00000400 /**< Used for > > tunneling packet. */ > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPIP_TNL_TSO 0x00000800 /**< Used for > > tunneling packet. */ > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GENEVE_TNL_TSO 0x00001000 /**< Used for > > tunneling packet. */ > > +#define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 0x00002000 /**< Used for PMD-specific > > API. */ > > > > /** > > * Ethernet device information > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > I am not sure how that supposed to work and how user should know that > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 > is actually a MACSEC for ixgbe?
Users are not supposed to use DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0, instead, they should use the capabilities and the likes defined in rte_pmd_ixgbe.h where the PMD-specifics APIs are declared: /** * If these flags are advertised by the PMD, the NIC supports the MACsec * offload. The incoming MACsec traffics can be offloaded transparently * after the MACsec offload is configured correctly by the application. * And the application can set the PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC flag in mbufs to * enable the MACsec offload for the packets to be transmitted. */ #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IXGBE_MACSEC_STRIP DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IXGBE_MACSEC_INSERT DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 /** * This event will occur when the PN counter in a MACsec connection * reach the exhaustion threshold. */ #define RTE_ETH_EVENT_IXGBE_MACSEC RTE_ETH_EVENT_RESERVED_0 /** * Offload the MACsec. This flag must be set by the application in mbuf * to enable this offload feature for a packet to be transmitted. */ #define PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC PKT_TX_RESERVED_0 PMD-specific APIs can only be used on the corresponding driver/device, so different PMD can share the same reserved bit to represent different things when implementing their own PMD-specific APIs. > Another question what to do if you would like to create a bonded device over > two devices with different NIC types? > As I understand you can end up in situation when DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 > would mean different capabilities. > Why not to have this MACSEC capability and ol_flag value as generic ones, as > you have them in previous versions of your patch? Those flags are only used in PMD-specific APIs. I don't think we could use the PMD-specific APIs provided by a certain PMD on a bonded device. Thanks & regards, Tiwei Bie
