[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update ICE doc

[Zhang, Qi Z]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Lu, Wenzhuo
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:40 PM
> To: Rami Rosen <ramirose at gmail.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update ICE doc
> 
> Hi Rami,
> 
> From: Rami Rosen [mailto:ramirose at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:55 AM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update ICE doc
> 
> Hi,
> In I40E DPDK nic guide, https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/i40e.html,
> MDD does not appear.
> [Wenzhuo] As I know, this feature is not supported by i40e. I40e can send
> such packets. That’s why we want to mentions this different behavior for
> ice.
> 
> In IXGBE DPDK nic guide,  https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/ixgbe.html,
> MDD appears, but in the known issues section.
> [Wenzhuo] Actually, for ixgbe, we want to mention MDD as a limitation
> (the same section as  known issue). Because it’s more like our driver’s
> robust is not so strong. We have to ask the APP to provide the right L2/L3
> length. (The reason is it’s not effective to let the driver inspect the packet
> to get the right length.) But this ice behavior is more like a feature. To my
> opinion, it’s reasonable to drop such packets. That’s why I put it in the
> feature section.
> 
> I think MDD is supported on both.
> 
> just wonder, for the sake of consistency, is it worth to add such a section
> also for these nics ?
> 
> Other than that,
> 
> Acked-by: Rami Rosen
> <ramirose at gmail.com<mailto:ramirose at gmail.com>>

Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel.

Thanks
Qi