On 3/21/2019 1:03 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
On 3/19/2019 4:30 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 2/27/2019 9:45 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
Building upon the discussion around [1], this series introduces MTU min
and MTU max variables. It also provides updates to PMD implementations
for ixgbe, i40e and IGB devices so that these variables are populated
for use when retrieving device info.
This series was tested with OVS DPDK and functions as expected for the
drivers listed below. But a wider selection of PMD drivers would have to
adopt this to ensure jumbo frames functionality remains for drivers not
modified in the series.
There is also ongoing discussion in [2] regarding overhead to be
considered with MTU and how this may change from device to device, this
series uses existing overhead assumptions.
This series was previously posted as an RFC in [3], this revision
removes RFC status and implements changes received in feedback.
[1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/110959.html
[2] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-February/124457.html
[3] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-February/124938.html
Ian Stokes (5):
net/i40e: set min and max MTU for i40e devices
net/i40e: set min and max MTU for i40e VF devices
net/ixgbe: set min and max MTU for ixgbe devices
net/ixgbe: set min and max MTU for ixgbe VF devices
net/e1000: set min and max MTU for igb devices
Stephen Hemminger (1):
ethdev: add min/max MTU to device info
Hi Ian, Stephen,
API and driver updates are included in the patchset, but I believe it
would be
good to have some application code that uses it as well, I assume testpmd
already has some code to set MTU, can you please update it too
accordingly?
Thanks Ferruh, sure I had looked at this but held off in the v1 as I
wasn't sure what best practice was, i.e. introduce the change to sample
app now or wait unitl all PMDs were on board. If it's preferred to
introduce usage in a sample app then I can do this in the v2.
Also, what do you think starting a unit test (which has a long term
target to
verify all ethdev APIs) that tests 'rte_eth_dev_set_mtu()' API with
various values?
Sounds useful, I can take a look for the v2, first steps might be basic
but can look into it.
Ian
In long term all vendors can run this unit test against their HW and
verify
ehtdev API implementation of their...
Hi Ferruh,
I've posted a v2 of the patchset based on the feedback.
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-March/127344.html
Unfortunately I did not have time to look at implementing the unit test
aspect. I don't think I'll have the bandwidth before the rc1 window next
week to implement this aspect but would be happy to look at it possibly
in the next 19.08 release if this is acceptable, is the unit test a
blocker for the rest of this work?
Thanks
Ian
