> On Jul 7, 2017, at 3:37 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>
> 07/07/2017 16:20, Wiles, Keith:
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 07/
07/07/2017 16:20, Wiles, Keith:
>
> > On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >
> > On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, An
On 07/07/2017 06:06 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
<...>
+TSO
+---
+
+Supports TCP Segmentation Offloading.
+
+* **mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_TCP_SEG``.
DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO in tx_offload_capa
Is support of one TSO option sufficient to say Yes?
This
On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
<...>
>> +TSO
>> +---
>> +
>> +Supports TCP Segmentation Offloading.
>> +
>> +* **mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_TCP_SEG``.
>
> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO in tx_offload_capa
> Is support of one TSO option sufficient to say Yes?
This is common question for
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>
> On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
>>> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> Also some PMDs have
On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> Also some PMDs have few implementations of the datapath (like vector and
> u
07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>> Also some PMDs have few implementations of the datapath (like vector and
> >>> usual). Ideally
> >>> we need common way to high
On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> Also some PMDs have few implementations of the datapath (like vector and
>>> usual). Ideally
>>> we need common way to highlight it. May be it is OK that control path
07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > Also some PMDs have few implementations of the datapath (like vector and
> > usual). Ideally
> > we need common way to highlight it. May be it is OK that control path
> > features are duplicated
> > in this case,
Hi Andrew,
On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 07/05/2017 04:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> Document NIC features, add more information about them and add more
>> implementation related support.
>
> It is very useful information and very good start.
Thanks for review, I rely on mor
On 07/05/2017 04:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
Document NIC features, add more information about them and add more
implementation related support.
It is very useful information and very good start.
I think it would be very useful to explain how PMD advertises support of
the feature and
how applic
> -Original Message-
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 2:20 PM
> To: Mcnamara, John
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh ; Olivier Matz
>
> Subject: [PATCH v3] doc: document NIC features
>
> Document NIC features, add more information about them and add more
> implemen
Document NIC features, add more information about them and add more
implementation related support.
Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit
Signed-off-by: John McNamara
---
Cc: Olivier Matz
v3:
* received updates from John, Thanks!
v2:
* Add more details, mbuf and API fields
* Formatting added
TODO:
- N
13 matches
Mail list logo
