19/11/2025 14:56, Tummala, Sivaprasad: > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > 19/11/2025 13:08, Tummala, Sivaprasad: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > > 06/10/2025 10:58, Tummala, Sivaprasad: > > > From: Konstantin Ananyev <[email protected]> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 11:39 PM Sivaprasad Tummala > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > --- a/examples/l3fwd-graph/main.c > > > > > > +++ b/examples/l3fwd-graph/main.c > > > > > > @@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ > > > > > > #define RX_DESC_DEFAULT 1024 > > > > > > #define TX_DESC_DEFAULT 1024 > > > > > > > > > > > > -#define MAX_TX_QUEUE_PER_PORT RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS > > > > > > #define MAX_RX_QUEUE_PER_PORT 128 > > > > > > > > AFAIK, in the mainline we actually have: > > > > #define MAX_TX_QUEUE_PER_PORT RTE_MAX_LCORE > > > > > > > In l3fwd-graph app, this change is not available and instead we have > > >> #define MAX_TX_QUEUE_PER_PORT RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS > > >> > > >> > since: > > >> > commit 88256ed85338c572d73006e4c4530a52d3b477ff > > >> > Author: Harman Kalra <[email protected]> > > >> > Date: Tue Jan 12 23:54:46 2021 +0530 > > >> > > > >> > examples/l3fwd: remove limitation on Tx queue count > > >> > > > >> > What I am missing here? > >> >> This patch marked here was fixing l3fwd app and not l3fwd-graph > >> > >> > Why not applying the same change to both examples? > >> Yes, that's what the patch is intended for to fix l3fwd-graph and tx > >> queues will scale with lcores and limited by RTE_MAX_LCORES. > > >But it is not done the same way. > > Here you remove MAX_TX_QUEUE_PER_PORT. > > Do you want to do the same in l3fwd? > Yes, it's better to fix the same in l3fwd as "MAX_TX_QUEUE_PER_PORT" is > redundant. > I can submit a separate patch for l3fwd.
Better to fix in a single patch. Please check if there are similar issue in other examples.
