Hi
From: Thomas Monjalon > 10/08/2019 23:31, Thomas Monjalon: > > 06/08/2019 20:17, Andrew Rybchenko: > > > On 8/6/19 5:56 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > > The API breakage is because the ``tso_segsz`` field was documented > > > > for LRO. > > > > > > > > The ``tso_segsz`` field in mbuf indicates the size of each segment > > > > in the LRO packet in Rx path and should be provided by the LRO > > > > packet port. > > > > > > > > While the generic LRO packet may aggregate different segments > > > > sizes in one packet, it is impossible to expose this information > > > > for each segment by one field and it doesn't make sense to expose > > > > all the segments sizes in the mbuf. > > > > > > > > A new field may be added as union with the above field to expose > > > > the number of segments aggregated in the LRO packet. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > > > --- > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > +* mbuf: Remove ``tso_segsz`` mbuf field providing for LRO > > > > +support. Use union > > > > + block for the field memory to be shared with a new field > > > > +``lro_segs_n`` > > > > + indicates the number of segments aggregated in the LRO packet. > > > > > > I think that the number of segments is more logical in the case of LRO. > > > The question (already asked by Konstantin) is why it is needed at > > > all (statistics?). If so, it still makes sense. > > > > > > Segment size is misleading here, since not all segments could be the > > > same size. So, > > > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > > > > > As far as I can see bnxt and qede do not fill it in. > > > mlx5 and vmxnet3 have the number of segments (vmxnet3 has segment > > > size sometimes and sometimes use a function to guess the value). > > > So both will win from the change. > > > It looks like virtio does not have number of segments. CC Maxime to > > > comment. > > > > I support improving the API for LRO. > > Unfortunately, the consensus is not strong enough at the moment. > > We had no progress about LRO field in mbuf. > Is it a change we would like to have in 20.11? > +1 to make the change.
