On 10/27/2019 9:04 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi All > > From: Andrew Rybchenko >> On 10/18/19 7:35 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> 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? >> >> I don't mind to accept it in 19.11 modulo better description of what is LRO >> session length/size. > > > Thanks, > > We can create the patch for ethdev for 19.11-RC2. > > Also PMD implementation to use it for RC2. > > Is it OK? (We need to break ABI as described in the deprecation notice) >
OK from me to have ethdev update and PMD implementation for rc2.
