[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/12] net/bnxt: fix rxq/txq get information

Lance Richardson lance.richardson at broadcom.com
Fri Sep 18 20:41:22 CEST 2020


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:41 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
>
> > -     qinfo->conf.rx_drop_en = 0;
> > +     qinfo->conf.rx_drop_en = 1;
>
> Why 0 is wrong but 1 is correct?
>
> Technically 'rx_drop_en' is a user configuration, which is set via
> 'rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()' API.
>
> bnxt seems not honoring this config option at all.
>
> Based on HW capability, I think two things can be done,
> 1) Configure the HW based on config request, and return configured value in
> 'bnxt_rxq_info_get_op()'. see 'ixgbe'.
>
> 2) If HW is not configurable, check the value in 'rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()'
> a) return error if unsupported value requested. see 'sfc'.
> b) log a warning and overwrite the requested config with whatever supported.
> And for both a & b, return current config in the 'bnxt_rxq_info_get_op()'
>
> >       qinfo->conf.rx_deferred_start = rxq->rx_deferred_start;
> > +     qinfo->conf.offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
>
Hi Ferruh,

Apologies, this somehow didn't make it to my inbox.

I believe case (2) applies here, rx_drop_en is not currently configurable in hw,
so this change was intended to accurately report the effective value. I'm not
sure whether (2a) or (2b) would be better, but (2b) seems less likely to cause
issues for existing applications.

>
> This is for queue specific offloads, you are returning port offloads.
> As far as I can see bnxt doesn't have any queue specific offload, so this can be
> dropped.

It wasn't clear to me whether this was intended to report the difference between
the offload configuration for the queue and the offload configuration
for the port
or the effective offload configuration for the queue. I noticed that
several other
PMDs (e.g. mlx5, netvsc, sfc) report the offload configuration for the port in
rx/tx_queue_info_get(). The sfc PMD reports the offload configuration for the
port combined with queue-specific offloads, based on those examples this
seemed to be correct. I guess you're saying those are also incorrect?

Thanks,
   Lance


More information about the dev mailing list