On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 15:34 +0000, Alexander Kozyrev wrote: > On Wed, April 15, 2020 7:26 Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 12:01 +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > On 4/14/2020 1:52 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 14/04/2020 13:42, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > > On 4/9/2020 11:23 PM, Alexander Kozyrev wrote: > > > > > > Define a device parameter to configure log 2 of a stride size > > > > > > for MPRQ > > > > > > - mprq_log_stride_size. User is able to specify a stride size in > > > > > > a range allowed by an underlying hardware. The default stride > > > > > > size is defined as > > > > > > 2048 bytes to encompass most commonly used packet sizes in the > > > > > > Internet (MTU 1518 and less) and will be used in case a maximum > > > > > > configured packet size cannot fit into the largest possible > > > > > > stride size. Otherwise a stride size is set to a large enough value > > > > > > to > > encompass a whole packet. > > > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > > > > > > > This is a new feature, and you are asking it for to be backported > > > > > to the stable trees. > > > > > > > > > > There is no question on getting the fixes to the stable tree, but > > > > > for backporting features I would like to get the comment of the > > > > > stable tree maintainers first before merging the series. > > > > > > > > As far as I know, there is a fix hidden in this series, for the case > > > > of jumbo frames. > > > > In my understanding, jumbo frames cannot be fixed without a new option. > > > > I agree it's tricky deciding what is the limit with backports. > > > > > > > > > > I missed the fix bit, so if there is no objection from stable tree > > > maintainers I will continue with the set keeping the stable tag. > > > > Given it's confined to a single PMD it's fine by me, provided that: > > > > 1) Backward compatibility is maintained > > 2) Forward compatibility is maintained (eg: going 19.11.x to 20.02 should > > still > > work and not cause any errors) > > The whole point of these patches are to fix the inability to handle 9K jumbo > frames. > A new devarg is required in order not to break the backward compatibility. > So I do not expect any issues with backward/forward compatibility with these > patches. > One thing I need to mention: backporting requires one small change. > Conversion from MLX5_ASSERT to assert clauses since we reworked them in 20.02. > I can provide a separate list of patches for 19.11 with this change if it > works better for you. > Thank you for you assistance and let me know how we should proceed further.
Ok, thanks. It's not necessary to send a series if the only change is the assert, I can fix it myself when backporting.
