Hi Ravi,
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> Sorry for this one, I had to resend patch series as 'v3' as additional
> checkpatch warnings were seen after the submission which didn't show
> up in my run.
>
> 'v3' patch should have all fixed except the ones I mentioned in my earlier
> email on which I need inputs from you.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Ravi Kerur <rke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> I have sent 'v2' patchset. I need clarifications on following things, if they
> should be fixed I will send out 'v3' so please let me know.
>
> Following code changes were done by me manually, not merged.
> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/main.c
> @@ -161,7 +163,9 @@ static struct rte_eth_conf port_conf = {
> .rx_adv_conf = {
> .rss_conf = {
> .rss_key = NULL,
> - .rss_hf = ETH_RSS_IP,
> + .rss_hf = ETH_RSS_IP | ETH_RSS_UDP |
> + ETH_RSS_TCP | ETH_RSS_SCTP,
> +
> },
>
> The reason I did it is because
>
> LPM/EM has .rss_hf = ETH_RSS_IP
> ACL has .rss_hf = ETH_RSS_IP | ETH_RSS_UDP | ETH_RSS_TCP | ETH_RSS_SCTP,
>
> ACL looks like a superset of LPM/EM and functional testing didn't reveal any
> issues hence I kept ACL version.
But at least for LPM, we probably don't want L4 ports affect packet
distribution?
Probably the safest way would be to have a separate port_conf for each case
(LPM/EM/ACL).
That way will preserve the original behavior.
>
> 2. Checkpatch errors are all fixed. Some warnings are not fixed and they are
>
> 2.a, string length greater than 80 characters
> 2.b GET_CB_FIELD macro. I could have changed GET_CB_FIELD to inline function,
> however, function names cannot be in capital letters. I
> could have changed it to 'get_cb_field' inline function, but didn't do it as
> I thought it may not be worth the change.
It is ok by me to leave as it is by now.
Thanks
Konstantin
