On 10/2/2019 2:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 24/09/2019 14:03, Matan Azrad: >> From: Ferruh Yigit >>> On 9/15/2019 8:48 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>>> Hi Ferruh >>>> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>>> On 8/29/2019 8:47 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>>>>> It may be needed by the user to limit the LRO session packet size. >>>>>> In order to allow the above limitation, add new Rx configuration for >>>>>> the maximum LRO session size. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition, Add a new capability to expose the maximum LRO session >>>>>> size supported by the port. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Matan, >>>>> >>>>> Is there any existing user of this new field? >>>> >>>> All the LRO users need it due to the next reasons: >>>> >>>> 1. If scatter is enabled - The dpdk user can limit the LRO session size >>>> created >>> by the HW by this field, if no field like that - there is no way to limit >>> it. >>>> 2. No scatter - the dpdk user may want to limit the LRO packet size in >>>> order >>> to save enough tail-room in the mbuf for its own usage. >>>> 3. The limitation of max_rx_pkt_len is not enough - doesn't make sense to >>> limit LRO traffic as single packet. >>>> >>> >>> So should there be more complement patches to this RFC? To update the >>> users of the field with the new field. >> >> >> We already exposed it as ABI breakage in the last deprecation notice. >> We probably cannot complete it for 19.11 version, hopefully for 20.02 it >> will be completed. > > We won't break the ABI in 20.02. > What should be done in 19.11? >
The ask was to add code that uses new added fields, this patch only adds new field to two public ethdev struct. @Thomas, @Andrew, if this patch doesn't goes it on this release it will have to wait a year. I would like to see the implementation but it is not there, what is your comment?
