On 11/27/2019 2:14 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 11/27/2019 2:11 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 27/11/2019 15:07, David Marchand: >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:06 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/27/2019 1:42 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> A buffer overflow happens in testpmd with some drivers >>>>> since the queue arrays are limited to RTE_MAX_QUEUES_PER_PORT. >>>>> >>>>> The advertised capabilities of mlx4, mlx5 and softnic >>>>> for the number of queues were the maximum number: UINT16_MAX. >>>>> They must be limited by the configured RTE_MAX_QUEUES_PER_PORT >>>>> that applications expect to be respected. >>>>> >>>>> The limitation is applied in above drivers having no limitation, >>>>> and at ethdev level (function rte_eth_dev_info_get), in order >>>>> to force the configured limit for all drivers. >>>> >>>> The limit is not device limit, should we reflect it into PMDs? >>>> Why not keep the limit only in the ethdev? >>> >>> +1. >> >> Yes ethdev is enough. >> I thought it would be better to document the limit in the PMDs as well, >> instead of keeping gigantic max. >> >> I can change if you feel strong about it. >> > > No strong opinion, but not sure if we should document ethdev limitation in > ethdev, for me only ethdev limit looks good. >
... not sure if we should document ethdev limitation in *PMD* ...
