> -----Original Message----- > From: Shahaf Shuler [mailto:shah...@mellanox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:31 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > Nicolau, Radu <radu.nico...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/39] examples/ip_reassembly: convert to new > ethdev offloads API > > Monday, December 11, 2017 5:04 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > + if ((dev_info.tx_offload_capa & port_conf.txmode.offloads) > > != > > > + port_conf.txmode.offloads) { > > > + printf("Some Tx offloads are not supported " > > > + "by port %d: requested 0x%lx supported > > 0x%lx\n", > > > + portid, port_conf.txmode.offloads, > > > + dev_info.tx_offload_capa); > > > + port_conf.txmode.offloads &= > > dev_info.tx_offload_capa; > > > + } > > > > Sort of generic question regarding most examples - wouldn't it be better to > > do rte_exit() if device doesn't support the offloads we expect instead of > > masking off unsupported offloads and continue? > > Konstantin > > We already started to discuss this question, see [1]. > > I agree that it is wrong approach to mask the not supported offloads and > continue the application. > So now I we have 2 options: > 1. report the warning and let the PMD to fail the device configuration. > 2. like you suggested, report the error and exit the application. > > While it is wrong for application to set offloads which are not reported by > the device capabilities, the input I got from Radu is that there are > a lot of PMDs that will break with option 2, see [1]. > One example is ixgbe which expects to have CRC offload enabled with IPSEC but > don't report it on its caps. > > So my current direction is to make the examples less strict, and give the > option for the PMD to fail those if not supported. > Any objection?
So basically option #1 from the above? If so, none from me. > > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-December/083441.html >
