On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
> routine.
>
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>
> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
> MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>
> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
> MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> " for requested offloads %04X",
> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> + assert(false);
Hi Slave,
I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally, specially in a
code that debug level log is printed.
> return NULL;
> }
> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>
