On Tue Apr 26 11:51:53 +0100 2016, Declan Doherty wrote: > On 14/04/16 18:23, Eric Kinzie wrote: > > Instead of a hard-coded maximum receive length, allow the bond interface > > to inherit this limit from the first slave added. This allows > > an application that uses jumbo frames to pass realistic values to > > rte_eth_dev_configure without causing an error. > > > >Signed-off-by: Eric Kinzie <ehkinzie at gmail.com> > >--- > ... > > > > Hey Eric, just one small thing, I think it probably makes sense to > return the max rx pktlen for all slaves, so as we add each slave > just check if that the slave being value is larger than the current > value. > > @@ -385,6 +389,10 @@ __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free(uint8_t > bonded_port_id, uint8_t slave_port_id) > internals->tx_offload_capa &= dev_info.tx_offload_capa; > internals->flow_type_rss_offloads &= > dev_info.flow_type_rss_offloads; > > + /* If new slave's max rx packet size is larger than > current value then override */ > + if (dev_info.max_rx_pktlen > internals->max_rx_pktlen) > + internals->max_rx_pktlen = dev_info.max_rx_pktlen; > + > > Declan
Declan, I sent an updated patch but now release that I mis-read your comments. Is it a good idea to change the value once it's been set? My patch now refuses to add a slave with a pktlen value that's smaller than that of the first slave. Eric
