On 3/21/2018 10:14 AM, Remy Horton wrote: > > On 20/03/2018 15:03, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 3/16/2018 3:36 PM, Remy Horton wrote: > [..] > >>> struct rte_eth_dev_preferred_size { >>> uint16_t burst; >>> uint16_t ring; >>> uint16_t nb_queues; >>> }; >>> struct rte_eth_dev_info { >>> /* ... */ >>> struct rte_eth_dev_preferred_size preferred_rx; >>> struct rte_eth_dev_preferred_size preferred_tx; >>> }; >> >> Hi Remy, >> >> There are already two members in "struct rte_eth_dev_info": >> "struct rte_eth_rxconf default_rxconf;" >> "struct rte_eth_txconf default_txconf;" >> >> These two are filled by PMDs. I think we can say these are PMD preferred >> values >> for rte_eth_[rt]xconf structs. >> >> Right now we are extending the preferred values that PMDs can provide. >> >> So what about using same naming convention to be consistent with existing >> usage? >> Something like > > > Would default_[rt]xportconf be ok?
not sure, rxportconf seems long word we can put some "_" perhaps, and "port" seems not used in existing data structures but I can't think of anything to replace it. > > I would consider adding the parameters to rte_eth_[rt]xconf rather than > creating a new rte_eth_portconf but since the former is used elsewhere > this might cause complications. Also they are specific to Rx/Tx queues but the values we are adding are not specific per queue. But what we are adding is more like: "struct rte_eth_txmode" "struct rte_eth_rxmode" Which are documented as "Rx / Tx features of an Ethernet port" but these are not part of dev_info.