On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 05:15:06AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Heng Qi <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 1:52 PM
>
> > > Yes, but having single interface for two use cases enables the device
> > implementation to not build driver interface specific infra.
> > > Both can be handled by unified interface.
> >
> > I reconsidered the number of groups, we don't necessarily have only two groups
> > for the time being (one is RFF, the other is ARFS). For example, the driver may
> > maintain groups with different priorities for RFF itself (for example, according
> > to the number of fields contained in ntuple, etc.), and the driver may also
> > maintain different groups with the same priority for different flow types of
> > ARFS, etc.
>
> This is fine and covered with the interface.
> Number of supported max groups is device capability that is exposed by the device.
>
> How many groups to use and which priority assign to each is driver's decision.
> So more than 2 groups is fine and supported by the requirements.
Yes, that's what I want to stress too.
>
> In Linux net device example, 2 groups seem enough,
Sorry I didn't understand this, are you referring to a net device
documentation or a driver implementation?
> but spec is not limited to it.
>
> When/if there is switch, it can also create a group and filter prioritize message before it reaches further nic processing.
> But we can keep this aside for now to not complicate the discussion more.
Yes, I noticed Xuan's thread, so this can be discussed in his thread.
Thanks!
