> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topel, Bjorn
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:17 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand at 6wind.com; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] i40evf: Report error if HW CRC strip is disabled for
> Linux
> PF hosts
>
> >> >> + /* For Linux PF hosts, VF has no ability to disable HW CRC strip,
> >> >> + * and is implicitly enabled by the PF.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + if (!conf->rxmode.hw_strip_crc) {
> >> >> + vf =
> I40EVF_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_VF(dev->data->dev_private);
> >> >> + if ((vf->version_major ==
> I40E_VIRTCHNL_VERSION_MAJOR) &&
> >> >> + (vf->version_minor <=
> I40E_VIRTCHNL_VERSION_MINOR)) {
> >> >> + /* Peer is Linux PF host. */
> >> > Can you reword above comments?
> >> > It just means the host is not DPDK PF host driver, it could be
> >> > Linux driver, and possible others (e.g. FreeBSD, VMWARE?).
> >>
> >> Sure, I'll reword it! The broader question, however, is this correct
> >> for non- Linux/non-DPDK PF drivers?
> >> For FreeBSD I'll dig into the code, but for VMWARE (and I'd assume
> >> Microsoft
> >> Windows) it'll be harder.
> >>
> >> Do you have any insights on the behavior for the non-open i40e PF drivers?
> >>
> >> From the documentation [1], it's unclear whether non-Linux/non-DPDK
> >> PF drivers are supported. My interpretation was that only DPDK and
> >> Linux PF hosts are supported for Fortville NICs.
> > I guess only DPDK is different, though I am not sure.
> > As all other NIC drivers were developped by the same organization.
> > Even assuming that FreeBSD supports both configuration, it will not be
> > a problem, as DPDK just doesn't support, and nothing wrong.
>
> I verified against the FreeBSD ixl-1.4.27 driver, and it behaves (in terms of
> rxq
> crcstrip) the same way.
>
> It would be a problem if the non-Linux/non-DPDK drivers had it (rx crcstrip)
> *disabled* by default. (Further, being able to actually change the setting
> from a
> VF would be nice as well. :-)) This doesn't seem to be case, though.
>
> So, I'll change the wording from "Linux PF hosts" to "non-DPDK PF host". Would
> that be OK?
I would agree with you. :)
Thank you!
Helin
>
>
> Bj?rn
