[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed Sep 28 16:30:26 CEST 2016



> -----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




More information about the dev mailing list