Hi, Ferruh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; sta...@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
>
> 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.
Just forget, it is not a problem. This typo happens from time to time 😊
And it seems to be a smaller evil than a permanent torturing my colleagues
with my full name "Viacheslav" 😊
>
> >
> > 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"
Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
report an error. "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade (in debug
mode
we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem
quickly,
reporting error will do the same).
With best regards, Slava
