On 5/10/2017 10:21 AM, santosh wrote:
Hi David,
On Thursday 05 October 2017 02:08 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
Hi Santosh,
On 4/10/2017 4:36 PM, santosh wrote:
Hi David,
On Wednesday 04 October 2017 02:45 PM, David Hunt wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nemanja Marjanovic <nemanja.marjano...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rory Sexton <rory.sex...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com>
---
my 2cent:
General comment on implementation approach:
IMO, we should avoid PMD details in common lib area.
example: file channel_commons.h has ifdef clutter referencing
i40e pmds all over.
Perhaps we should introduce opaque handle example void * or introduce pmd
specific callback/handle which points to PMD specific metadata in power library.
Example:
struct channel_packet {
void *pmd_specific_metadata;
}
Or someway via callback (I'm not sure at the moment)
so that we could hide PMD details in common area.
Thanks.
I would agree that PMD specific details are good left to the PMDs, however I
think that the initial
example should be OK as is, and as new PMDs are added, we can find commonality
between them
which stays in the example, and any really specific stuff can be pushed back
behind an opaque.
What about the v5 I submitted (without the #ifdef's)? Are you OK with that for
this release, and we can
fine tune as other PMDS are added in future releases?
Yes. But in future releases, we should do more code clean up in power lib and
example area..
meaning; current example implementation uses names like _vsi.. specific to
intel NICs,
we should remove such naming and their dependency code from example area.
Thanks.
I agree. I plan to clean up the API in the next release of DPDK. For
exmaple, there are private header files that are called rte_*.h that
expose private functions to the documentation. These need to be renamed,
as well as moving some structures around. I can also look at re-naming
some of the vsi vars to something more generic.
Thanks,
Dave.
