On 07/04/2018 03:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
04/07/2018 13:16, Andrew Rybchenko:
On 07/03/2018 12:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
--- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/link_status_intr.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/link_status_intr.rst
@@ -137,10 +137,7 @@ The global configuration is stored in a static structure:
static const struct rte_eth_conf port_conf = {
.rxmode = {
.split_hdr_size = 0,
- .header_split = 0, /**< Header Split disabled */
- .hw_ip_checksum = 0, /**< IP checksum offload disabled */
- .hw_vlan_filter = 0, /**< VLAN filtering disabled */
- .hw_strip_crc= 0, /**< CRC stripped by hardware */
+ .offloads = DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP,
Is it intended that CRC strip was disabled before and now it is becoming
enabled?
Yes, I consider the comment to be the real intent.
OK. I see. Most likely yes. I agree.
--- a/examples/bbdev_app/main.c
+++ b/examples/bbdev_app/main.c
@@ -64,11 +64,7 @@ static const struct rte_eth_conf port_conf = {
.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_NONE,
.max_rx_pkt_len = ETHER_MAX_LEN,
.split_hdr_size = 0,
- .header_split = 0, /**< Header Split disabled */
- .hw_ip_checksum = 0, /**< IP checksum offload disabled */
- .hw_vlan_filter = 0, /**< VLAN filtering disabled */
- .jumbo_frame = 0, /**< Jumbo Frame Support disabled */
- .hw_strip_crc = 0, /**< CRC stripped by hardware */
+ .offloads = DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP,
Is it intended that CRC strip was disabled before and now it is becoming
enabled?
Yes, I consider the comment to be the real intent.
--- a/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
+++ b/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
@@ -97,11 +90,6 @@ static struct rte_eth_txconf tx_conf = {
},
.tx_free_thresh = 32, /* Use PMD default values */
.tx_rs_thresh = 32, /* Use PMD default values */
- .txq_flags = (ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTSEGS |
- ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOVLANOFFL |
- ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMSCTP |
- ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMUDP |
- ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMTCP)
};
enum {
@@ -808,38 +796,29 @@ test_set_rxtx_conf(cmdline_fixed_string_t mode)
if (!strcmp(mode, "vector")) {
/* vector rx, tx */
- tx_conf.txq_flags = 0xf01;
I'd say that 100% correct equivalent would be:
tx_conf.offloads &= ~(DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_INSERT |
DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM | DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SCTP_CKSUM |
DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS);
I'd say it is a really crappy code, and probably tuned for Intel devices only.
I guess the function may be called few times with different mode set.
If so, similar fixes should be applied below as well.
tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
- port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 0;
- port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 0;
port_conf.rxmode.offloads &= ~(DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM |
DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER);
return 0;
} else if (!strcmp(mode, "scalar")) {
/* bulk alloc rx, full-featured tx */
- tx_conf.txq_flags = 0;
I think here we should enable offloads listed above to have
full-featured Tx:
tx_conf.offloads |= ...
tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
- port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 1;
- port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 0;
+ port_conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
port_conf.rxmode.offloads &= ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER;
return 0;
} else if (!strcmp(mode, "hybrid")) {
/* bulk alloc rx, vector tx
* when vec macro not define,
* using the same rx/tx as scalar
*/
- tx_conf.txq_flags = 0xf01;
As in similar case above.
tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
- port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 1;
- port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 0;
+ port_conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
As in similar case above
return 0;
} else if (!strcmp(mode, "full")) {
/* full feature rx,tx pair */
- tx_conf.txq_flags = 0x0; /* must condition */
As in similar case above.
tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
- port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 0;
- port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 1; /* must condition */
+ port_conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER;
port_conf.rxmode.offloads &= ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
return 0;
}
In general I think that it would be really good to avoid changes in
behaviour when technical changes are done.
I agree, but in this case, it is impossible to know what was the real intent.
And I am perfectly fine breaking bad code.
The other option is to just remove the file. Maybe the best option?
I have no strong opinion. As far as I can see there is no maintainer for
it...
