On 06/12/2022 00:01, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
Hi David:
-----Original Message-----
From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:15 PM
To: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
<qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org; Yuan, DukaiX <dukaix.y...@intel.com>; Wang, Jie1X
<jie1x.w...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Yang, SteveX
<stevex.y...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Xing,
Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Yuying <yuying.zh...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/i40e: fix X722 NIC receives jumbo frame packets
Hi Kevin, Qi,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:48 AM Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] net/i40e: fix X722 NIC receives jumbo frame
packets
For NIC I40E_10G-10G_BASE_T_X722, when the port is configured with
link speed, it cannot receive jumbo frame packets.
Because it set maximum frame size failed when starts the port that
the port link status is still down.
This patch fix the error that starts the port will force set
maximum frame
size.
Fixes: 2184f7cdeeaa ("net/i40e: fix max frame size config at port
level")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Jie Wang <jie1x.w...@intel.com>
It seems this fix has been missed in 21.11 (for the reason we discussed with
Kevin offlist).
Our QE reported that reception of jumbo frames seems broken in the 21.11
branch.
I can reproduce with a X710 nic: v21.11.0 is fine, but v21.11.1 and
v21.11.2 show the following error log.
Dec 05 05:41:37 xxx ovs-vswitchd[53585]:
ovs|00183|dpdk|ERR|i40e_set_mac_max_frame(): Set max frame size at
port level not applicable on link down
The log goes away with backporting this current patch.
Can this be added to 21.11 queue, and have Intel validate this issue?
Yes, the patch has been verified on X722.
Great, can a test also be added to the Intel LTS release validation for
this?
Looking at the chain of fixes, it appears this issue was present on
multiple 21.11.x and 20.11.x releases.
As the patch Cc stable, we can assume it will be captured in 21.11.3 by default.
No, the original commit where the chain of fixes started was not tagged
with 'Fixes:' so this chain of fixes looked like it was fixing an issue
that originated in 22.03.
It is applied now and will be part of 21.11.3.
thanks,
Kevin.
Thanks!
--
David Marchand
