[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] ethdev: fix max Rx packet length

Andrew Rybchenko andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru
Thu Jul 22 12:38:27 CEST 2021


On 7/22/21 1:27 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 7/22/2021 2:31 AM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>      > [snip]
>>      >
>>      >> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>      >> index faf3bd901d75..9f288f98329c 100644
>>      >> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>      >> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>      >> @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ enum rte_eth_tx_mq_mode {
>>      >>  struct rte_eth_rxmode {
>>      >>      /** The multi-queue packet distribution mode to be used, e.g. RSS. */
>>      >>      enum rte_eth_rx_mq_mode mq_mode;
>>      >> -    uint32_t max_rx_pkt_len;  /**< Only used if JUMBO_FRAME enabled. */
>>      >> +    uint32_t mtu;  /**< Requested MTU. */
>>      >
>>      > Maximum Transmit Unit looks a bit confusing in Rx mode
>>      > structure.
>>      >
>>
>>      True, but I think it is already used for Rx already as concept, I believe the
>>      intention will be clear enough. Do you think will be more clear if we pick a
>>      DPDK specific variable name?
>>
>> Maybe use MRU - Max Receive Unit.
>>   
> 
> It can be an option, but this patch unifies 'max_rx_pkt_len' & 'mtu' => mtu,
> if we switch to 'mru', we should switch all usage to 'mru', including
> 'rte_eth_dev_set_mtu()' API name change, to not cause a new confusion between
> 'mru' & 'mtu' difference.
> 
> Does 'mtu' really cause this much confusion to do all this change?

Reconsidering it I see no better options. Yes, mtu is a bit confusing
in Rx configuration, but just a bit.

>>
>>      >>      /** Maximum allowed size of LRO aggregated packet. */
>>      >>      uint32_t max_lro_pkt_size;
>>      >>      uint16_t split_hdr_size;  /**< hdr buf size (header_split enabled).*/
>>      >
>>      > [snip]
>>      >
>>



More information about the dev mailing list