[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