Sure, Ferruh. Just let me know how can I help you. Andriy
> On 23 Jan 2019, at 19:36, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > >> On 5/24/2018 10:20 AM, Andriy Berestovskyy wrote: >> Hi Shahaf, >> >>> On 23 May 2018, at 07:21, Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> wrote: >>> I think this patch addressing just small issue in a bigger problem. >>> The way I see it all application needs to specify is the max packet size it >>> expects to receive, nothing else(!). >> >> [...] >> >>> IMO The "jumbo_frame" bit can be set by the underlying PMD directly to the >>> device registers given the max_rx_pkt_len configuration. >> >> Sure, it can be deducted in PMD if max_rx_pkt_len is greater than the normal >> frame size. >> >> The background behind this patch was to fix some examples on some platforms >> by allowing them to just set the jumbo bit in config and let the DPDK to >> deduct the optimal jumbo max_rx_pkt_len. >> >> There was also another patch which fixed those examples, so they first query >> the max_rx_pkt_len and then pass it with the config: >> http://dpdk.org/commit/5e470a6654 >> >> That patch has been merged, so now we can fix/change the API in any way we >> decide, there is no urgency anymore. >> >> Looks like the jumbo bit in config is redundant, but there might be other >> opinions. > > Back to this old issue, the mentioned inconsistency is still exist in the > current code, and this or relevant ones mentioned a few times already. > > What would you think about developing an unit test on 19.05 to test these on > ethdev, and ask vendors to run it and fix failures in next releases? > A more TDD approach, first right the test that fails, later fix it. > If there is a support I can start writing it but will require support. > > > And related issues: > max_rx_pkt_len > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS > scattered_rx > mtu > > > These are provided by user as config option, but some drivers updates some of > them, initial question is, are they input only or can be modified by drivers. > > Like if user not requested JUMBO_FRAME but provided a large max_rx_pkt_len, > should user get an error or should PMD enable jumbo frame itself? > > > And another question around 'max_rx_pkt_len' / 'mtu', both are related and > close. 'max_rx_pkt_len' is frame size as far as I can understand, and since we > have capability to set 'mtu', this looks duplicate. > And I assume users are mostly will be interested in 'mtu', for given 'mtu' > driver can calculate 'max_rx_pkt_len' taking other config options into account > affecting frame size.
