On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> 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>
<...>
>>>> @@ -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);
<...>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>
Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
without 'assert'?
