Hi Kevin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 5:40 PM > To: Jiang, YuX <yux.ji...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Su, > Simei <simei...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, > Yuying <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; david.march...@redhat.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; > Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Mcnamara, John > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] net/i40e: rework maximum frame size configuration > > On 24/03/2023 06:32, Jiang, YuX wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:51 PM > >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Su, Simei > >> <simei...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, > >> Yuying <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; david.march...@redhat.com; Jiang, > >> YuX <yux.ji...@intel.com> > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; > >> sta...@dpdk.org; Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Mcnamara, John > >> <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] net/i40e: rework maximum frame size > >> configuration > >> > >> On 22/03/2023 16:50, Kevin Traynor wrote: > >>> On 27/02/2023 00:35, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > >>>> > >>> > >>> Hi Simei/Qi/Yu > >>> > >> > >> Hi Yu, > >> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Su, Simei <simei...@intel.com> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 4:00 PM > >>>>> To: Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Yuying > >>>>> <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; > >>>>> david.march...@redhat.com > >>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Su, Simei > >>>>> <simei...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH v6] net/i40e: rework maximum frame size > >>>>> configuration > >>>>> > >>>>> One issue is reported by David Marchand that error occurs in OVS > >>>>> due to the fix patch in mentioned changes below. The detailed > >>>>> reproduce step and result are in > >>>>> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/ > >>>>> 20211207085946.121032-1-dapengx...@intel.com/. > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch removes unnecessary link status check and directly sets > >>>>> mac config in dev_start. Also, it sets the parameter "wait to > >>>>> complete" true to wait for more time to make sure adminq command > >> execute completed. > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Fixes: a4ba77367923 ("net/i40e: enable maximum frame size at port > >>>>> level") > >>>>> Fixes: 2184f7cdeeaa ("net/i40e: fix max frame size config at port > >>>>> level") > >>>>> Fixes: 719469f13b11 ("net/i40e: fix jumbo frame Rx with X722") > >>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > >>> > >>> These patches caused an observable regression in multiple 20.11 and > >>> 21.11 LTS releases that was only caught a long time after releases. > >>> > >>> Is there anything being added to LTS validation for regression > >>> testing this issue, so we don't get caught again? > >>> > >> > >> This is the issue I was talking about earlier during the release > >> meeting. Not sure if we were talking about the same patch. > >> > >> I was asking if there are some regression tests added/can be added to > >> LTS validation that will be run during each LTS validation cycle so > >> we don't have any more regressions on it. > >> > > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for your comments. > > Yes. We are adding additional case to cover more testing. For main branch, > we have done the regression testing (including the additional case testing), > they both work well. > > That's good to hear. Will the additional regression tests also be added to the > LTS validation tests when they are run? > > > We hope the two related patches can be backported to LTS branch, and the > second patch just reworks for previous bug's fix. > > Patch1: > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20221213091837.87953-1-d > avid.march...@redhat.com/ a8ca8ed net/i40e: revert link status check > on device start > > I have already reverted those 3 backports on 21.11 branch so this is not > needed. > > > Pathc2: > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230306121853.27547-1-s > imei...@intel.com/ 82fcf20 net/i40e: fix maximum frame size > configuration > > > > That is the v7 of this v6 with revert and fix split, so same one being > discussed > above.
The fix split is to rework and simplify code in previous bug fix patch for unexpected packets received issue. Best Regards, Simei > > > Best regards, > > Yu Jiang > > > >> thanks, > >> Kevin. > >> > >>> After reverting the original patch and 2 fixes, I'm a bit reluctant > >>> to take more fixes without some form of regression testing in place. > >>> > >>> thanks, > >>> Kevin. > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Reported-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Simei Su <simei...@intel.com> > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > >>>> > >>>> Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Qi > >>>> > >>> > >
