[PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Hemant Agrawal]

Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
---
 doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
@@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
 
   - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
   - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
+
+* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
+  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
+  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
+  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,
+  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,
+  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:01:31 +0530
Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>  
>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
> +
> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,
> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,
> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.

Why are these exposed as something applications should care about?
The data structures in rte_kni_common.h are not an API

Re: [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 5/3/2017 4:50 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:01:31 +0530
> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> wrote:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>> ---
>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>>  
>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
>> +
>> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
>> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
>> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
>> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,
>> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,
>> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.
> 
> Why are these exposed as something applications should care about?
> The data structures in rte_kni_common.h are not an API

+1,

rte_kni_common.h is a contract between user - kernel space, not part of API.

Re: [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>  
>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
> +
> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,

rte_kni_request is between KNI library and KNI kernel module, shouldn't
be part of API.

> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,

Again,  rte_kni_mbuf should be only concern of KNI kernel module.

> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.

rte_kni_device_info also between KNI library and KNI kernel module.

I think deprecation notice not required for above ones.

But you KNI patchset updates rte_kni_conf and rte_kni_ops.
These are part of KNI API and changing them cause ABI breakage,

but if new fields appended in these structs, this will not cause an ABI
breakage, and I think that is better to do instead of deprecation
notice, what do you think?


And apart from above ABI issues,
adding new fields to "rte_kni_ops" means DPDK application that use KNI
should implement them, right?
So this suggest everyone require to set promiscuity of KNI device should
implement this.

Can't we find another way that all can benefit from a common implementation?

Thanks,
ferruh

Re: [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Hemant Agrawal]

On 5/4/2017 10:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>> ---
>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>>
>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
>> +
>> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
>> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
>> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
>> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,
>
> rte_kni_request is between KNI library and KNI kernel module, shouldn't
> be part of API.
>
>> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,
>
> Again,  rte_kni_mbuf should be only concern of KNI kernel module.
>
>> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.
>
> rte_kni_device_info also between KNI library and KNI kernel module.
>
> I think deprecation notice not required for above ones.
>
> But you KNI patchset updates rte_kni_conf and rte_kni_ops.
> These are part of KNI API and changing them cause ABI breakage,
> but if new fields appended in these structs, this will not cause an ABI
> breakage, and I think that is better to do instead of deprecation
> notice, what do you think?

I agree.
>
>
> And apart from above ABI issues,
> adding new fields to "rte_kni_ops" means DPDK application that use KNI
> should implement them, right?

Well, it depend, if the application is interested in this information or 
not?

> So this suggest everyone require to set promiscuity of KNI device should
> implement this.

yes!

> Can't we find another way that all can benefit from a common implementation?

how you want it differently? Any ideas?


>
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>

Re: [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Hemant Agrawal]

On 5/3/2017 9:20 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:01:31 +0530
> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>> ---
>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>>
>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
>> +
>> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
>> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
>> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
>> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,
>> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,
>> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.
>
> Why are these exposed as something applications should care about?
> The data structures in rte_kni_common.h are not an API
>
Agreed. This is not needed.

Re: [PATCH] doc: notice for changes in kni structures

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 5/8/2017 10:46 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> On 5/4/2017 10:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>>> ---
>>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> index a3e7c72..0c1ef2c 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>>>
>>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_get``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_get``
>>>    - ``rte_crpytodev_scheduler_mode_set``, replaced by ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set``
>>> +
>>> +* kni: additional functionality is planned to be added in kni to support mtu, macaddr,
>>> +  gso_size, promiscusity configuration.
>>> +  some of the kni structure will be changed to support additional functionality
>>> +  e.g  ``rte_kni_request`` to support promiscusity`` and mac_addr,
>>
>> rte_kni_request is between KNI library and KNI kernel module, shouldn't
>> be part of API.
>>
>>> +  ``rte_kni_mbu`` to support the configured gso_size,
>>
>> Again,  rte_kni_mbuf should be only concern of KNI kernel module.
>>
>>> +  ``rte_kni_device_info`` and ``rte_kni_conf`` to also support mtu and macaddr.
>>
>> rte_kni_device_info also between KNI library and KNI kernel module.
>>
>> I think deprecation notice not required for above ones.
>>
>> But you KNI patchset updates rte_kni_conf and rte_kni_ops.
>> These are part of KNI API and changing them cause ABI breakage,
>> but if new fields appended in these structs, this will not cause an ABI
>> breakage, and I think that is better to do instead of deprecation
>> notice, what do you think?
> 
> I agree.
>>
>>
>> And apart from above ABI issues,
>> adding new fields to "rte_kni_ops" means DPDK application that use KNI
>> should implement them, right?
> 
> Well, it depend, if the application is interested in this information or 
> not?
> 
>> So this suggest everyone require to set promiscuity of KNI device should
>> implement this.
> 
> yes!
> 
>> Can't we find another way that all can benefit from a common implementation?
> 
> how you want it differently? Any ideas?

Can having default implementations in librte_kni work? Would
applications be doing something different, lets say to set MTU?

> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh
>>
> 
>