> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:30 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev at dpdk.org > Cc: jigsaw at gmail.com; Zhang, Helin > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/13] mbuf: add functions to get the name > of an ol_flag > > Hi Konstantin, > > On 11/17/2014 08:00 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >> +/* > >> + * Get the name of a RX offload flag > >> + */ > >> +const char *rte_get_rx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask) > >> +{ > >> + switch (mask) { > >> + case PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT: return "PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT"; > >> + case PKT_RX_RSS_HASH: return "PKT_RX_RSS_HASH"; > >> + case PKT_RX_FDIR: return "PKT_RX_FDIR"; > >> + case PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD: return "PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD"; > >> + case PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD: return "PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD"; > >> + /* case PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD: return "PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD"; */ > >> + /* case PKT_RX_OVERSIZE: return "PKT_RX_OVERSIZE"; */ > >> + /* case PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW: return "PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW"; */ > >> + /* case PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR: return "PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR"; */ > >> + /* case PKT_RX_MAC_ERR: return "PKT_RX_MAC_ERR"; */ > > > > Didn't spot it before, wonder why do you need these 5 commented out lines? > > In fact, why do we need these flags if they all equal to zero right now? > > I know these flags were not introduced by that patch, in fact as I can see > > it was a temporary measure, > > as old ol_flags were just 16 bits long: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-June/003308.html > > So wonder should now these flags either get proper values or be removed? > > I would be in favor of removing them, or at least the following ones > (I don't understand how they can help the application): > > - PKT_RX_OVERSIZE: Num of desc of an RX pkt oversize. > - PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW: Header buffer overflow. > - PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR: Hardware processing error. > - PKT_RX_MAC_ERR: MAC error.
Tend to agree... Or probably collapse these 4 flags into one: flag PKT_RX_ERR or something. Might be still used by someone for debugging purposes. Helin, what do you think? > > I would have say that a statistics counter in the driver is more > appropriate for this case (maybe there is already a counter in the > hardware). > > I have no i40e hardware to test that, so I don't feel very comfortable > to modify the i40e driver code to add these stats. > > Adding Helin in CC list, maybe he has an idea. > > Regards, > Olivier
