On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> 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,
Sorry Slava, it must be auto-correction, I recognized a few milliseconds too
late.
>
> 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"
>>
>
