[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] net/ixgbe: Add API to update SBP bit

[Shweta Choudaha]

Thanks for the review.
I have sent an updated patch and will send patch to remove experimental
from API for next release

Thanks,
Shweta

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:14:35AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 4/4/2018 3:25 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> > > Hi Shweta,
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shweta Choudaha
> > >> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:59 PM
> > >> To: dev at dpdk.org
> > >> Cc: shweta.choudaha at att.com
> > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] net/ixgbe: Add API to update SBP bit
> > >>
> > >> From: Shweta Choudaha <shweta.choudaha at att.com>
> > >>
> > >> Add ixgbe API to enable SBP bit in FCTRL register to allow receiving
> packets
> > >> that may otherwise be considered length errors by ixgbe and dropped
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Shweta Choudaha <shweta.choudaha at att.com>
> > >> Reviewed-by: Chas Williams <chas3 at att.com>
> > >> Reviewed-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>
> > >> ---
> > >
> > >
> > >> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/rte_pmd_ixgbe_version.map
> > >> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/rte_pmd_ixgbe_version.map
> > >> @@ -52,3 +52,9 @@ DPDK_17.08 {
> > >>    rte_pmd_ixgbe_bypass_wd_timeout_show;
> > >>    rte_pmd_ixgbe_bypass_wd_timeout_store;
> > >>  } DPDK_17.05;
> > >> +
> > >> +EXPERIMENTAL {
> > >> +  global:
> > >> +
> > >> +  rte_pmd_ixgbe_upd_fctrl_sbp;
> > >> +} DPDK_17.08;
> > > The patch is fine except we should use 18.05 here.
> >
> > We have a rule to have an API as experimental for one release.
> >
> > Not sure about this rule covering the PMD specific APIs but by default
> it is, we
> > can discuss to have an exception for PMD APIs or not.
> >
> > After one release developer should send patch to remove experimental
> from API
> >
> +1 for following the process.
> I don't see why pmd-specific APIs should be a general exception. Any
> exceptions should be on an individual case-by-case basis IMHO
>