On 01/04/15 10:58, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 4:45 PM
>> To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
>>
>>
>> On 01/04/15 09:18, Ouyang Changchun wrote:
>>> Check mq mode for VMDq RSS, handle it correctly instead of returning
>>> an error; Also remove the limitation of per pool queue number has max
>>> value of 1, because the per pool queue number could be 2 or 4 if it is
>>> VMDq RSS mode;
>>>
>>> The number of rxq specified in config will determine the mq mode for
>> VMDq RSS.
>>> Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang <changchun.ouyang at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 39
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 95f2ceb..59ff325 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -510,8 +510,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id,
>>> uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>>>
>>> if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active != 0) {
>>> /* check multi-queue mode */
>>> - if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_RSS) ||
>>> - (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
>>> + if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
>>> (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_RSS)
>> ||
>>> (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_TX_DCB)) {
>>> /* SRIOV only works in VMDq enable mode */ @@ -
>> 525,7 +524,6 @@
>>> rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
>> uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>>> }
>>>
>>> switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) {
>>> - case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
>>> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB:
>>> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS:
>>> /* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement
>> yet */ @@ -534,6
>>> +532,39 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t
>> nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>>> "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode
>> rx %u\n",
>>> port_id, dev_conf-
>>> rxmode.mq_mode);
>>> return (-EINVAL);
>>> + case ETH_MQ_RX_RSS:
>>> + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
>>> + " SRIOV active, "
>>> + "Rx mq mode is changed from:"
>>> + "mq_mode %u into VMDQ
>> mq_mode %u\n",
>>> + port_id,
>>> + dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode,
>>> + dev->data-
>>> dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode);
>>> + case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
>>> + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
>> ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS;
>>> + if (nb_rx_q <
>> RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool) {
Missed that before: shouldn't it be "<=" here?
>>> + switch (nb_rx_q) {
>>> + case 1:
>>> + case 2:
>>> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
>>> + ETH_64_POOLS;
>>> + break;
>>> + case 4:
>>> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
>>> + ETH_32_POOLS;
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev
>> port_id=%d"
>>> + " SRIOV active, "
>>> + "queue number invalid\n",
>>> + port_id);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool =
>> nb_rx_q;
>>> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).def_pool_q_idx =
>>> + dev->pci_dev->max_vfs * nb_rx_q;
>>> + }
>> Don't u need to return an error in the "else" here?
> Actually it has such a check after these code snippet, and it does return
> error for the else case,
> Because it is original logic, I don't change any code around it, so it
> doesn't display here, you can check the codes.
I see. The flow is a bit confusing since the switch-case above will end
up executing a "default" clause which will set
RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool to 1 and then the error message in
the check u are referring will be a bit confusing.
>
> Thanks
> Changchun
>
>
