[RFC] net/null: add empty promiscuous mode functions
Checks
Commit Message
Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
Comments
On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>
> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
+Andrew
With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
working with virtual interfaces,
We can,
1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
(1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>
> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> index e2ff41a22..b8472a0cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> @@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ eth_mac_address_set(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int
> +eth_dev_promiscuous_enable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +eth_dev_promiscuous_disable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
> .dev_start = eth_dev_start,
> .dev_stop = eth_dev_stop,
> .dev_configure = eth_dev_configure,
> .dev_infos_get = eth_dev_info,
> + .promiscuous_enable = eth_dev_promiscuous_enable,
> + .promiscuous_disable = eth_dev_promiscuous_disable,
> .rx_queue_setup = eth_rx_queue_setup,
> .tx_queue_setup = eth_tx_queue_setup,
> .rx_queue_release = eth_queue_release,
>
On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>
>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
> +Andrew
>
> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
> working with virtual interfaces,
>
> We can,
> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>
> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>
> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
it should initialize it properly on init:
eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
fail and it is good.
>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>> index e2ff41a22..b8472a0cf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>> @@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ eth_mac_address_set(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int
>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_enable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int
>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_disable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
>> .dev_start = eth_dev_start,
>> .dev_stop = eth_dev_stop,
>> .dev_configure = eth_dev_configure,
>> .dev_infos_get = eth_dev_info,
>> + .promiscuous_enable = eth_dev_promiscuous_enable,
>> + .promiscuous_disable = eth_dev_promiscuous_disable,
>> .rx_queue_setup = eth_rx_queue_setup,
>> .tx_queue_setup = eth_tx_queue_setup,
>> .rx_queue_release = eth_queue_release,
>>
On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>
>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>> +Andrew
>>
>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>
>> We can,
>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>
>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>
>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>
> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
> it should initialize it properly on init:
> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
> fail and it is good.
It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> index e2ff41a22..b8472a0cf 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> @@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ eth_mac_address_set(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int
>>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_enable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_disable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
>>> .dev_start = eth_dev_start,
>>> .dev_stop = eth_dev_stop,
>>> .dev_configure = eth_dev_configure,
>>> .dev_infos_get = eth_dev_info,
>>> + .promiscuous_enable = eth_dev_promiscuous_enable,
>>> + .promiscuous_disable = eth_dev_promiscuous_disable,
>>> .rx_queue_setup = eth_rx_queue_setup,
>>> .tx_queue_setup = eth_tx_queue_setup,
>>> .rx_queue_release = eth_queue_release,
>>>
>
On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>
>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>> +Andrew
>>>
>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>
>>> We can,
>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>
>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>
>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>> fail and it is good.
> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
callback to say me truth.
If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>>> index e2ff41a22..b8472a0cf 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>>> @@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ eth_mac_address_set(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int
>>>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_enable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int
>>>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_disable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
>>>> .dev_start = eth_dev_start,
>>>> .dev_stop = eth_dev_stop,
>>>> .dev_configure = eth_dev_configure,
>>>> .dev_infos_get = eth_dev_info,
>>>> + .promiscuous_enable = eth_dev_promiscuous_enable,
>>>> + .promiscuous_disable = eth_dev_promiscuous_disable,
>>>> .rx_queue_setup = eth_rx_queue_setup,
>>>> .tx_queue_setup = eth_tx_queue_setup,
>>>> .rx_queue_release = eth_queue_release,
>>>>
On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>
>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>> +Andrew
>>>>
>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>
>>>> We can,
>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>
>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>
>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>> fail and it is good.
>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>
> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
> callback to say me truth.
>
> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
physical devices.
Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>>>> index e2ff41a22..b8472a0cf 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>>>> @@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ eth_mac_address_set(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int
>>>>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_enable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int
>>>>> +eth_dev_promiscuous_disable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
>>>>> .dev_start = eth_dev_start,
>>>>> .dev_stop = eth_dev_stop,
>>>>> .dev_configure = eth_dev_configure,
>>>>> .dev_infos_get = eth_dev_info,
>>>>> + .promiscuous_enable = eth_dev_promiscuous_enable,
>>>>> + .promiscuous_disable = eth_dev_promiscuous_disable,
>>>>> .rx_queue_setup = eth_rx_queue_setup,
>>>>> .tx_queue_setup = eth_tx_queue_setup,
>>>>> .rx_queue_release = eth_queue_release,
>>>>>
>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
> >>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
> >>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
> >>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
> >>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
> >>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
> >>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
> >>>> +Andrew
> >>>>
> >>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
> >>>> working with virtual interfaces,
> >>>>
> >>>> We can,
> >>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
> >>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
> >>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
> >>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
> >>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
> >>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
> >>> it should initialize it properly on init:
> >>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
> >>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
> >>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
> >>> fail and it is good.
> >> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
> >> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
> >> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
> >
> > If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
> > callback to say me truth.
> >
> > If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>
> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
> physical devices.
>
> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>
The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
error for vpmds.
/Bruce
On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>
>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>
>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>
>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>> physical devices.
>>
>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>
> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
> error for vpmds.
>
Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
right to me.
Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
add a little code and an easier solution.
On 10/17/2019 4:33 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>
>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>
>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>
>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>> physical devices.
>>>
>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>
>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>> error for vpmds.
>>
>
> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
> right to me.
>
> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>
> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
> add a little code and an easier solution.
>
btw, initialize promiscuous as enabled at PMD init won't help with current APIs
because in API dev_ops check is earlier and will still cause -ENOTSUP.
rte_eth_promiscuous_enable
RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->promiscuous_enable, -ENOTSUP);
if (dev->data->promiscuous == 0)
diag = (*dev->dev_ops->promiscuous_enable)(dev);
dev->data->promiscuous = (diag == 0) ? 1 : 0;
return
On 10/18/19 11:18 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/17/2019 4:33 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>>> physical devices.
>>>>
>>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>>
>>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>>> error for vpmds.
>>>
>> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
>> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
>> right to me.
>>
>> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
>> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>>
>> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
>> add a little code and an easier solution.
>>
> btw, initialize promiscuous as enabled at PMD init won't help with current APIs
> because in API dev_ops check is earlier and will still cause -ENOTSUP.
My bad, I think it should be fixed.
> rte_eth_promiscuous_enable
> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
> RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->promiscuous_enable, -ENOTSUP);
> if (dev->data->promiscuous == 0)
> diag = (*dev->dev_ops->promiscuous_enable)(dev);
> dev->data->promiscuous = (diag == 0) ? 1 : 0;
> return
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
> >>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
> >>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
> >>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
> >>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
> >>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
> >>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
> >>>>>> +Andrew
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
> >>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We can,
> >>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
> >>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
> >>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
> >>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
> >>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
> >>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
> >>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
> >>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
> >>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
> >>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
> >>>>> fail and it is good.
> >>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
> >>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
> >>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
> >>>
> >>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
> >>> callback to say me truth.
> >>>
> >>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
> >>
> >> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
> >> physical devices.
> >>
> >> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
> >> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
> >> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
> >> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
> >>
> > The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
> > disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
> > and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
> > rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
> > error for vpmds.
> >
>
> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
> right to me.
Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
why is it checking the return value at all?
>
> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>
Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
to handle it.
> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
> add a little code and an easier solution.
On 10/18/2019 11:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>>
>>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>>> physical devices.
>>>>
>>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>>
>>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>>> error for vpmds.
>>>
>>
>> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
>> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
>> right to me.
>
> Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
> right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
> why is it checking the return value at all?
>
>>
>> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
>> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>>
> Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
> correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
> to handle it.
My thinking is, application "cares" about the ethdev API return values, but to
check/test quickly with null/ring PMD perhaps not really care that much abut
promisc/allmuticast support of these PMDs and let's relax these support of
virtual PMDs to make life easy.
But eventually the main target is to fix sample applications to run with virtual
PMDs which has been broken in this release.
Both approach works,
a) Implement dummy dev_ops to virtual PMDs to report success
b) Update ethdev APIs to not call dev_ops if the requested configuration is
already satisfied and change virtual PMDs to report promisc & allmulticast
enabled by default. (disable still will have same issue)
Is the consensus option (b)?
btw, the problem exists in high level for the offload support, if the
application is requesting a specific offload support it fails to run with the
virtual PMDs since virtual PMDs doesn't support any offloads. Indeed I have same
suggestion for this case too, relax the virtual PMD by claiming it supports all
offloads. Because at least for me when I use those virtual PMDs I don't really
would like to test offloads or the procmisc/allmulticast features ...
>
>> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
>> add a little code and an easier solution.
On 10/18/19 2:38 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/18/2019 11:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>>>> physical devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>>>
>>>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>>>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>>>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>>>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>>>> error for vpmds.
>>>>
>>> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
>>> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
>>> right to me.
>> Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
>> right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
>> why is it checking the return value at all?
>>
>>> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
>>> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>>>
>> Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
>> correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
>> to handle it.
> My thinking is, application "cares" about the ethdev API return values, but to
> check/test quickly with null/ring PMD perhaps not really care that much abut
> promisc/allmuticast support of these PMDs and let's relax these support of
> virtual PMDs to make life easy.
>
> But eventually the main target is to fix sample applications to run with virtual
> PMDs which has been broken in this release.
> Both approach works,
> a) Implement dummy dev_ops to virtual PMDs to report success
> b) Update ethdev APIs to not call dev_ops if the requested configuration is
> already satisfied and change virtual PMDs to report promisc & allmulticast
> enabled by default. (disable still will have same issue)
>
> Is the consensus option (b)?
Yes.
> btw, the problem exists in high level for the offload support, if the
> application is requesting a specific offload support it fails to run with the
> virtual PMDs since virtual PMDs doesn't support any offloads. Indeed I have same
> suggestion for this case too, relax the virtual PMD by claiming it supports all
> offloads. Because at least for me when I use those virtual PMDs I don't really
> would like to test offloads or the procmisc/allmulticast features ...
It looks like I simply don't understand virtual PMDs usacase.
>>> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
>>> add a little code and an easier solution.
On 10/18/2019 12:57 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10/18/19 2:38 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/18/2019 11:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>>>>> physical devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>>>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>>>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>>>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>>>>
>>>>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>>>>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>>>>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>>>>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>>>>> error for vpmds.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
>>>> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
>>>> right to me.
>>> Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
>>> right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
>>> why is it checking the return value at all?
>>>
>>>> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
>>>> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>>>>
>>> Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
>>> correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
>>> to handle it.
>> My thinking is, application "cares" about the ethdev API return values, but to
>> check/test quickly with null/ring PMD perhaps not really care that much abut
>> promisc/allmuticast support of these PMDs and let's relax these support of
>> virtual PMDs to make life easy.
>>
>> But eventually the main target is to fix sample applications to run with virtual
>> PMDs which has been broken in this release.
>> Both approach works,
>> a) Implement dummy dev_ops to virtual PMDs to report success
>> b) Update ethdev APIs to not call dev_ops if the requested configuration is
>> already satisfied and change virtual PMDs to report promisc & allmulticast
>> enabled by default. (disable still will have same issue)
>>
>> Is the consensus option (b)?
>
> Yes.
>
>> btw, the problem exists in high level for the offload support, if the
>> application is requesting a specific offload support it fails to run with the
>> virtual PMDs since virtual PMDs doesn't support any offloads. Indeed I have same
>> suggestion for this case too, relax the virtual PMD by claiming it supports all
>> offloads. Because at least for me when I use those virtual PMDs I don't really
>> would like to test offloads or the procmisc/allmulticast features ...
>
> It looks like I simply don't understand virtual PMDs usacase.
I guess it changes for virtual PMD, bonding, failsafe, vhost, etc has more
production use cases, null I would assume mostly used for debugging.
>
>>>> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
>>>> add a little code and an easier solution.
>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:38:53PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/18/2019 11:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
> >>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
> >>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
> >>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
> >>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
> >>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
> >>>>>>>> +Andrew
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
> >>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We can,
> >>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
> >>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
> >>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
> >>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
> >>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
> >>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
> >>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
> >>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
> >>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
> >>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
> >>>>>>> fail and it is good.
> >>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
> >>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
> >>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
> >>>>> callback to say me truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
> >>>> physical devices.
> >>>>
> >>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
> >>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
> >>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
> >>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
> >>>>
> >>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
> >>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
> >>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
> >>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
> >>> error for vpmds.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
> >> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
> >> right to me.
> >
> > Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
> > right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
> > why is it checking the return value at all?
> >
> >>
> >> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
> >> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
> >>
> > Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
> > correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
> > to handle it.
>
> My thinking is, application "cares" about the ethdev API return values, but to
> check/test quickly with null/ring PMD perhaps not really care that much abut
> promisc/allmuticast support of these PMDs and let's relax these support of
> virtual PMDs to make life easy.
>
> But eventually the main target is to fix sample applications to run with virtual
> PMDs which has been broken in this release.
> Both approach works,
> a) Implement dummy dev_ops to virtual PMDs to report success
> b) Update ethdev APIs to not call dev_ops if the requested configuration is
> already satisfied and change virtual PMDs to report promisc & allmulticast
> enabled by default. (disable still will have same issue)
>
> Is the consensus option (b)?
>
>
>
> btw, the problem exists in high level for the offload support, if the
> application is requesting a specific offload support it fails to run with the
> virtual PMDs since virtual PMDs doesn't support any offloads. Indeed I have same
> suggestion for this case too, relax the virtual PMD by claiming it supports all
> offloads. Because at least for me when I use those virtual PMDs I don't really
> would like to test offloads or the procmisc/allmulticast features ...
>
I really dislike having the drivers lying. It may work in some cases, but
eventually you will hit a problem where an app really does need a feature
and then breaks for the user in mysterious ways when run with a virtual
PMD. Much better to have the vPMD always report the truth to the app, and
let the app worry about whether the app can continue on error or not.
Final option I'd throw out there, is to allow a vdev parameter to tell the
vpmd it's allowed to lie. That gives an override in case of an app that
can't handle a non-fatal failure.
/Bruce
On 10/18/2019 2:12 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:38:53PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/18/2019 11:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>>>>> physical devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>>>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>>>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>>>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>>>>
>>>>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>>>>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>>>>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>>>>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>>>>> error for vpmds.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
>>>> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
>>>> right to me.
>>>
>>> Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
>>> right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
>>> why is it checking the return value at all?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
>>>> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>>>>
>>> Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
>>> correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
>>> to handle it.
>>
>> My thinking is, application "cares" about the ethdev API return values, but to
>> check/test quickly with null/ring PMD perhaps not really care that much abut
>> promisc/allmuticast support of these PMDs and let's relax these support of
>> virtual PMDs to make life easy.
>>
>> But eventually the main target is to fix sample applications to run with virtual
>> PMDs which has been broken in this release.
>> Both approach works,
>> a) Implement dummy dev_ops to virtual PMDs to report success
>> b) Update ethdev APIs to not call dev_ops if the requested configuration is
>> already satisfied and change virtual PMDs to report promisc & allmulticast
>> enabled by default. (disable still will have same issue)
>>
>> Is the consensus option (b)?
>>
>>
>>
>> btw, the problem exists in high level for the offload support, if the
>> application is requesting a specific offload support it fails to run with the
>> virtual PMDs since virtual PMDs doesn't support any offloads. Indeed I have same
>> suggestion for this case too, relax the virtual PMD by claiming it supports all
>> offloads. Because at least for me when I use those virtual PMDs I don't really
>> would like to test offloads or the procmisc/allmulticast features ...
>>
> I really dislike having the drivers lying. It may work in some cases, but
> eventually you will hit a problem where an app really does need a feature
> and then breaks for the user in mysterious ways when run with a virtual
> PMD. Much better to have the vPMD always report the truth to the app, and
> let the app worry about whether the app can continue on error or not.
>
> Final option I'd throw out there, is to allow a vdev parameter to tell the
> vpmd it's allowed to lie. That gives an override in case of an app that
> can't handle a non-fatal failure.
vdev devarg can work for the offload case, only issue I can see at first glance
is code duplication among the PMDs but perhaps that can be solved when issue
checked in-dept.
@@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ eth_mac_address_set(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
return 0;
}
+static int
+eth_dev_promiscuous_enable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int
+eth_dev_promiscuous_disable(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
.dev_start = eth_dev_start,
.dev_stop = eth_dev_stop,
.dev_configure = eth_dev_configure,
.dev_infos_get = eth_dev_info,
+ .promiscuous_enable = eth_dev_promiscuous_enable,
+ .promiscuous_disable = eth_dev_promiscuous_disable,
.rx_queue_setup = eth_rx_queue_setup,
.tx_queue_setup = eth_tx_queue_setup,
.rx_queue_release = eth_queue_release,