> -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:42 PM > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>; Kevin Traynor > <ktray...@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads default set error > > On 6/11/2019 2:28 AM, Zhao1, Wei wrote: > > Hi, Kevin Traynor > > This patch is based on Yigit Ferruh's suggestion in the following mail. > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-May/132178.html > > If we take your propose, it means we do need any patch at all. > > Because the code implement now is just that scheme, we will do "or" for > offloads. > > Hello Ferruh,What is your comment? > > My comment was if the user not set the queue offload use the default one, so I > think we don't need to track individual offload options. > > But also there is slightly difference between user not set the value and > 'offloads' being zero. What if user set the offloads value to '0' to disable > all > offloads, it will use default values in this case. >
Yes, we can not distinguish between not set the value and using 0 to disable it, so if the bit is 0 how can we Know the actual purpose of users? I think it is hard track individual offload as Kevin Traynor said. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kevin Traynor [mailto:ktray...@redhat.com] > >> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 6:10 PM > >> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads default set > >> error > >> > >> On 10/06/2019 07:45, Wei Zhao wrote: > >>> There is no need to use default offloads configuration if offloads > >>> configuration has been pass down from uplayer. > >>> > >> > >> It doesn't seem like the right fix to me. It means if a user > >> enable/disable one offload in the command line they are silently > >> changing from the default behaviour of other offloads? I could > >> understand if the user set all offloads in one go through a mask but not > when they are set seemingly independent. > >> > >> It looks like you need to track which ones have been enabled/disabled > >> by the user, and use the default for for the other offloads. > >> > >>> Fixes: 5e91aeef218c ("app/testpmd: fix offload flags after port > >>> config") > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zh...@intel.com> > >>> --- > >>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 6 ++++-- > >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index > >>> 0148b0a..b5f5801 100644 > >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c > >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c > >>> @@ -2815,7 +2815,8 @@ rxtx_port_config(struct rte_port *port) > >>> for (qid = 0; qid < nb_rxq; qid++) { > >>> offloads = port->rx_conf[qid].offloads; > >>> port->rx_conf[qid] = port->dev_info.default_rxconf; > >>> - port->rx_conf[qid].offloads |= offloads; > >>> + if (offloads) > >>> + port->rx_conf[qid].offloads = offloads; > >>> > >>> /* Check if any Rx parameters have been passed */ > >>> if (rx_pthresh != RTE_PMD_PARAM_UNSET) @@ -2839,7 > >> +2840,8 @@ > >>> rxtx_port_config(struct rte_port *port) > >>> for (qid = 0; qid < nb_txq; qid++) { > >>> offloads = port->tx_conf[qid].offloads; > >>> port->tx_conf[qid] = port->dev_info.default_txconf; > >>> - port->tx_conf[qid].offloads |= offloads; > >>> + if (offloads) > >>> + port->tx_conf[qid].offloads = offloads; > >>> > >>> /* Check if any Tx parameters have been passed */ > >>> if (tx_pthresh != RTE_PMD_PARAM_UNSET) > >>> > >
