On 2/14/2023 9:55 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/14/2023 8:15 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:00 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>>>>> When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
>>>>> error value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
>>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawe...@trustnetic.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>>> @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>> */
>>>>> buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
>>>>> RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
>>>>> - buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>> + if (buf_size < 1024)
>>>>> + buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>
>>>> Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this
>>>> cause HW to receive packets exceeding the buffer size?
>>>>
>>>> If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any buffer
>>>> size less than 1K is an error condition for this HW?
>>>>
>>>
>>> After rechecking the code, the minimum buffer size is limited to 1K by the
>>> txgbe/ngbe [1].
>>> I think v1 patch for txgbe is enough.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> static int
>>> txgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info
>>> *dev_info) {
>>> struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>>> struct txgbe_hw *hw = TXGBE_DEV_HW(dev);
>>>
>>> dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024;
>>>
>>>
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>> srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
>>>>>
>>>>> wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Ferruh,
>>
>> Is my proposal feasible or do I need to send v3 patch for it?
>>
>>
>
> Sorry Jiawen, I missed your response.
>
> Yes, you are right, 'dev_info->min_rx_bufsize' prevents user to set
> buffer size less than 1K, so change in V1 is good.
>
> There were some other changes too, instead of getting this patch from
> v1, can you please send a new version with latest updates?
We can drop 1/10 and you have sent a v3 for 2/10, right?
