From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:26:13 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC11F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1471528125-26357-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08D86D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0BC0A3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <1918603.2PG7Ygo6cR@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Jerin Jacob , "Shah, Rahul R" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , azelezniak To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24D82C39 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:26:39 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1918603.2PG7Ygo6cR@xps13> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 2:03 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: Iremonger, Bernard ; Richardson, Bruce <= bruce.richardson@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Jerin > Jacob ; Shah, Rahul R ; Lu, Wenzhuo ; > azelezniak > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF= management >=20 > 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 functio= nality available for multiple driver types. >=20 > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features. > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs. >=20 > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would need simi= lar 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? >=20 > No definitive answer. > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which is imple= mented 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 NI= Cs for now, but different models/drivers). Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all HW fr= om this subset without rebuilding/implementing the app. >=20 > 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 hand= le such situations. Konstantin =20