On 01/10/2021 01:12, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:01 PM Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
Hi Ajit,
On 01/10/2021 00:48, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
::::
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
index 97ae52e17e..7a8da3d7ab 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
@@ -1485,10 +1485,36 @@ static void
init_config_port_offloads(portid_t pid, uint32_t socket_id)
{
struct rte_port *port = &ports[pid];
+ uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
uint16_t data_size;
int ret;
int i;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID;
+
+ ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(pid, &rx_meta_features);
+ if (ret == 0) {
+ if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action FLAG will not affect Rx mbufs
on port %u\n",
Log level info might be a little too noisy?
Do you really think so? But main() sets default log level to DEBUG, quote:
rte_log_set_level(testpmd_logtype, RTE_LOG_DEBUG);
If I go for DEBUG instead of INFO here, it won't get any quieter, will it?
You are right. It won't.
But then three extra messages per port will stand out. But that's my opinion.
Maybe you could log the message when a flow is created with any of the
meta features?
The idea is to warn the user from the very beginning that certain flow
primitives won't actually work. This way, the user can refrain from
trying to use them in flow rules. This might save their time.
But I don't mind going for DEBUG here. More opinions are welcome.
+ pid);
+ }
+
+ if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK)) {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action MARK will not affect Rx mbufs
on port %u\n",
+ pid);
+ }
+
+ if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID)) {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow tunnel offload support might be
limited or unavailable on port %u\n",
+ pid);
+ }
:::
--
Ivan M
--
Ivan M
