On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 05:09:07PM +0800, Yuan Wang wrote:
> Modification of default values should be limited to E610,
> as 82599 handles raw IP well.
>
Hi,
I think you could do with clarifying the issue here. The patch title seems to
imply that there is an issue with the E610, but in fact the code change is
for all NICs except E610. What is the observed behaviour on an X550 or an
82599 NIC vs what is desired? Is setting the default masks to zero not ok?
Thanks,
/Bruce
> Fixes: c81daae2383a (net/ixgbe: fix port mask default value in filter)
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuan Wang <yuanx.w...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
> b/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
> index 1bf0af330f..71b11f9e70 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
> @@ -1644,8 +1644,10 @@ ixgbe_parse_fdir_filter_normal(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> memset(&rule->mask, 0xFF, sizeof(struct ixgbe_hw_fdir_mask));
> rule->mask.vlan_tci_mask = 0;
> rule->mask.flex_bytes_mask = 0;
> - rule->mask.dst_port_mask = 0;
> - rule->mask.src_port_mask = 0;
> + if (hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_E610) {
> + rule->mask.dst_port_mask = 0;
> + rule->mask.src_port_mask = 0;
> + }
>
> /**
> * The first not void item should be
> --
> 2.47.1
>
