[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads overwrite by default configuration

Zhao1, Wei wei.zhao1 at intel.com
Fri May 24 03:55:21 CEST 2019


Hi, Ferruh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:43 PM
> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: stable at dpdk.org; Peng, Yuan <yuan.peng at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads overwrite by
> default configuration
> 
> On 5/21/2019 2:30 AM, Zhao1, Wei wrote:
> > Hi, Ferruh
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:23 PM
> >> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: stable at dpdk.org; Peng, Yuan <yuan.peng at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> >> <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads
> >> overwrite by default configuration
> >>
> >> On 5/14/2019 2:56 AM, Zhao1, Wei wrote:
> >>> Hi,  Ferruh
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 12:36 AM
> >>>> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org; Peng, Yuan <yuan.peng at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> >>>> <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads
> >>>> overwrite by default configuration
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/9/2019 8:20 AM, Wei Zhao wrote:
> >>>>> There is an error in function rxtx_port_config(), which may
> >>>>> overwrite offloads configuration get from function
> >>>>> launch_args_parse() when run testpmd app. So rxtx_port_config()
> >>>>> should
> >> do "or" for port offloads.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: d44f8a485f5d ("app/testpmd: enable per queue configure")
> >>>>> cc: stable at dpdk.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 5 +++++
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> >>>>> 6fbfd29..f0061d9 100644
> >>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>>>> @@ -2809,9 +2809,12 @@ static void  rxtx_port_config(struct
> >>>>> rte_port *port)  {
> >>>>>  	uint16_t qid;
> >>>>> +	uint64_t offloads;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  	for (qid = 0; qid < nb_rxq; qid++) {
> >>>>> +		offloads = port->rx_conf[qid].offloads;
> >>>>>  		port->rx_conf[qid] = port->dev_info.default_rxconf;
> >>>>> +		port->rx_conf[qid].offloads |= offloads;
> >>>>
> >>>> OK to this changes as a fix for this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I think intention is, if no offload information is provided by
> >>>> user to use use the driver provided defaults, if user explicitly
> >>>> provided some values to use them, instead of OR these two.
> >>>>
> >>>> With this approach it is not possible to disable a driver default
> >>>> value, so it becomes mandatory offload instead of default offload values.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wei, what do you think, does it make sense?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree with you, but it is sure that the original code has offloads
> >>> overwrite
> >> issue.
> >>> What is your suggestion for code implement?
> >>> I find that Thomas has apply it, if you has other idea, maybe you
> >>> has to
> >> commit patch base to this patch.
> >>
> >> Hi Wei,
> >>
> >> Yes this needs to be incremental fix to existing code.
> >>
> >> Queue specific offload can be altered either by providing Rx/Tx
> >> offload as command line argument [1] (port configs set to each
> >> queues) or via testpmd commands [2].
> >> Does it make sense to set a global flag when one of above occurs and
> >> use default config only if it is not set?
> >
> > I  AGREE with you to submit an incremental fix, and it make sense to
> > set a global flag when one of above occurs and use  default config only if it is
> not set when implement code, but I do not have time to prepare such a patch
> by now, so maybe later or some else.
> 
> I see, can you submit a public defect to record the issue, so it can be addressed
> later without forgotten?

Sure, but what is a public defect patch? Do you mean I need to update some doc? Can you give me a link as an example ?


> 
> >
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> Tx
> >>   tx-offloads
> >> Rx
> >>   disable-crc-strip
> >>   enable-lro
> >>   enable-scatter
> >>   enable-rx-cksum
> >>   enable-rx-timestamp
> >>   enable-hw-vlan
> >>   enable-hw-vlan-filter
> >>   enable-hw-vlan-strip
> >>   enable-hw-vlan-extend
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> "port config <port_id> rx_offload ..."
> >> "port <port_id> rxq <queue_id> rx_offload ..."
> >> "port config <port_id> tx_offload ..."
> >> "port <port_id> txq <queue_id> tx_offload ..."
> >>
> >



More information about the dev mailing list