On 7/22/21 1:27 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 7/22/2021 2:31 AM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:> [snip] > >> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >> index faf3bd901d75..9f288f98329c 100644 >> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h >> @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ enum rte_eth_tx_mq_mode { >> struct rte_eth_rxmode { >> /** The multi-queue packet distribution mode to be used, e.g. RSS. */ >> enum rte_eth_rx_mq_mode mq_mode; >> - uint32_t max_rx_pkt_len; /**< Only used if JUMBO_FRAME enabled. */ >> + uint32_t mtu; /**< Requested MTU. */ > > Maximum Transmit Unit looks a bit confusing in Rx mode > structure. > True, but I think it is already used for Rx already as concept, I believe the intention will be clear enough. Do you think will be more clear if we pick a DPDK specific variable name? Maybe use MRU - Max Receive Unit.It can be an option, but this patch unifies 'max_rx_pkt_len' & 'mtu' => mtu, if we switch to 'mru', we should switch all usage to 'mru', including 'rte_eth_dev_set_mtu()' API name change, to not cause a new confusion between 'mru' & 'mtu' difference. Does 'mtu' really cause this much confusion to do all this change?
Reconsidering it I see no better options. Yes, mtu is a bit confusing in Rx configuration, but just a bit.
>> /** Maximum allowed size of LRO aggregated packet. */ >> uint32_t max_lro_pkt_size; >> uint16_t split_hdr_size; /**< hdr buf size (header_split enabled).*/ > > [snip] >
