On 2/10/2026 6:54 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 03:19:27PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 2/10/2026 3:10 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 01:48:20PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 2/9/2026 5:45 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
Move all context descriptor handling to a single function, as with
the ice driver, and use the same function signature as that driver.
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]> ---
<snip>
+static __rte_always_inline uint16_t +get_context_desc(uint64_t
ol_flags, const struct rte_mbuf *tx_pkt, + const
union ci_tx_offload *tx_offload, + const struct
ci_tx_queue *txq __rte_unused, + uint64_t *qw0,
uint64_t *qw1) +{ + uint16_t cd_l2tag2 = 0; + uint64_t
cd_type_cmd_tso_mss = I40E_TX_DESC_DTYPE_CONTEXT; + uint32_t
cd_tunneling_params = 0; + + if
(i40e_calc_context_desc(ol_flags) == 0) + return 0; +
+ if (ol_flags & RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TUNNEL_MASK) +
i40e_parse_tunneling_params(ol_flags, *tx_offload,
&cd_tunneling_params); + + if (ol_flags &
RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TCP_SEG) { + cd_type_cmd_tso_mss |=
i40e_set_tso_ctx(ol_flags, tx_pkt, *tx_offload); + } else {
+#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588 + if (ol_flags &
RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IEEE1588_TMST) + cd_type_cmd_tso_mss
|= + ((uint64_t)I40E_TX_CTX_DESC_TSYN <<
I40E_TXD_CTX_QW1_CMD_SHIFT); +#endif
I couldn't find any places where we define this, it appears to be
some sort of legacy define, making this basically dead code?
It is legacy, and does need to be fixed, but across all of DPDK I
think. Testpmd, for example, has IEEE1588 ifdefs also.
However, for this patch, it's probably harmless enough to remove the
ifdef here and always allow this code path to execute.
/Bruce
Sure, but I would've preferred this to be a separate patch as it's
semantically different from what you're doing here. Perhaps it can be
fixed as one of the early patches in the series as "preparatory work" for
this one.
I don't think it belongs in this series at all, actually. The IEEE1588
define appears in multiple drivers, not just Intel ones, as well as testpmd
(as I previously said). However, if you think it's worth patching it out
just for i40e I can add the patch to do so to this set.
/Bruce
I don't have strong feelings about *when* to remove it, but if we are to
remove it, IMO we should do it as a separate patch, not as a rolled-in
change into this one. However, I don't think it's a big issue so if you
think it's not worth the rework then that's fine.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
