On 5/24/2018 7:55 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:56 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
>> Subject: Re: Critical fixes for next-net-mlx
>>
>> On 5/24/2018 3:11 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>> Hi Ferruh,
>>>
>>> In next-net-mlx and for “next-net” there are several critical fixes:
>>> * fecb5cb net/mlx4: drop support in Mellanox OFED 4.2 Small doc update
>>> to notify all users – this is for next-net.
>>
>> Documentation patches are accepted for rc6, ok for this one.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>> * 995b985 net/mlx5: fix generic tunnel offloading compatibility check
>>> w/o it we cannot compile on RH7.5 with inbox libs (rdma-core).
>>
>> This is updating Makefile, changing the data structure to check to give a
>> configuration decision. What to check has been updated because of what is
>> available in a distro.
>>
>> I believe this is not something to break the build, and should be safe for
>> rest
>> of the dpdk.
>>
>> But from your point of view, if this data structure cause any un-expected
>> result in any other distro, you won't have another opportunity to fix, I just
>> want to confirm are you sure about change?
>
> Confirm.
> In fact with this change the check is more strict.
> The check that was before checked for enum. But with backport of patches to
> the distro rmda-core tree, the enum can be defined even though not all
> configuration struct exists.
> For example,
>
> enum {
> X=1,
> Y=2,
> Z=3,
> };
>
> Y can be defined when one backport the patch that introduce Z.
>
> The configuration struct however exists only if the needed feature is fully
> backported (enum + struct).
> This is way this change is safe.
>
>
>>
>>> * 8276073 net/mlx5: fix SW parser
>>> offset w/o it TSO for tunnel is broken
>>
>> What is the scope of this one?
>
> This is to fix the offloads introduced by commits:
> 5f8ba81 net/mlx5: support generic tunnel offloading
> 5355f44 ethdev: introduce generic IP/UDP tunnel checksum and TSO
Adding this information to commit log.
>
> i.e. the support for generic IP/UDP tunnel Tx offloads.
>
> Commit log doesn't have enough information.
>> What feature is broken, what is the exposure is it broken for all use cases
>> or
>> for some, is there any workaround?
>
> Unfortunately no.
>
> As you can see from the commit the inner/UDP offset is passed incorrectly to
> the device, causing TSO and checksum offload not to work (as the device
> access the wrong offset in the packet headers).
> Without this patch the feature is broken.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Hope it will be possible to include those.
>>>
>>> --Shahaf
>
