> From: Sriram Yagnaraman [mailto:sriram.yagnara...@ericsson.com] > > Hi Morten, > > > From: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > > > > From: Sriram Yagnaraman [mailto:sriram.yagnara...@ericsson.com] > > > > > > When using ring based ethdev, mbuf->port is not set on received packets. > > > > > > For applications that use the mbuf->port to identify the incoming > > > port, especially when eventdev RX adapter pulls the packet on a > > > different core and the application running on a worker core has no > > > clue on the incoming port. This change adds some cycles at receive, to > > > set the port of course. > > > > I agree that the mbuf->port field must be set before returning from > > rte_eth_rx_burst(). > > > > I'm not aware how applications use the ring based ethdev, so I might be > > asking silly questions... > > > > How about all the other mbuf fields normally set by the PMD before > > returning from rte_eth_rx_burst()? > > > > Is the enqueueing core supposed to set them? > > I am integrating a couple of existing DPDK applications, and they use > rte_eth_* API between them today. To keep the API consistent, and not make too > many changes in the applications themselves, net_ring seems to be the best > option. If someone has a better idea, I would love to hear. > > There are no "HW" offloads when using net_ring, and IIUC there are no HW > related fields that can be set at rx_burst. > So, apart from port field, I didn't see much else that needed to be set. > > > > > Or if the ring is only used for queueing packets originally received (at a > > physical port) by the enqueueing core, why not keep the mbuf->port value > > from the original reception? > > In my case the enqueuing application originates the flow from SW, so the > rte_mbuf does not come from a NIC.
Thank you for the explanation. Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > > > > > > > > Please advise if this change is something that can be upstreamed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sriram Yagnaraman <sriram.yagnara...@ericsson.com>
