On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:09:44PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/21/2017 1:56 PM, Shijith Thotton wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:01:58PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2017 12:53 PM, Shijith Thotton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:24:49PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>> On 3/2/2017 11:32 AM, Shijith Thotton wrote:
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Shijith Thotton <shijith.thot...@caviumnetworks.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Derek Chickles <derek.chick...@caviumnetworks.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Venkat Koppula <venkat.kopp...@caviumnetworks.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Srisivasubramanian S <ssriniva...@caviumnetworks.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Mallesham Jatharakonda <mjatharako...@oneconvergence.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> <...>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static int
> >>>>> +lio_dev_change_vf_mtu(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev, uint16_t new_mtu)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct lio_device *lio_dev = LIO_DEV(eth_dev);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!lio_dev->intf_open) {
> >>>>> + lio_dev_err(lio_dev, "Port %d down, can't change MTU\n",
> >>>>> + lio_dev->port_id);
> >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Limit the MTU to make sure the ethernet packets are between
> >>>>> + * ETHER_MIN_MTU bytes and PF's MTU
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + if ((new_mtu < ETHER_MIN_MTU) ||
> >>>>> + (new_mtu > lio_dev->linfo.link.s.mtu)) {
> >>>>> + lio_dev_err(lio_dev, "Invalid MTU: %d\n", new_mtu);
> >>>>> + lio_dev_err(lio_dev, "Valid range %d and %d\n",
> >>>>> + ETHER_MIN_MTU, lio_dev->linfo.link.s.mtu);
> >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this really sets the MTU?
> >>>> "new_mtu" seems not used, except limit check, an lio_send_ctrl_pkt()
> >>>> required perhaps?
> >>>
> >>> It won't set MTU for hardware and is possible only by PF. So
> >>> lio_send_ctrl_pkt is not required. VF MTU is limited by PF MTU and is
> >>> mentioned under limitations in driver documentation. Here we are
> >>> allowing upper layer to set MTU up to the value configured by PF.
> >>
> >> I see, but lio_dev_change_vf_mtu() does not set anything at all. If it
> >> is not modifying anything at all, why you claim "MTU update" supported?
> >
> > We allow update for the upper layer till the value supported by PF even
> > though there are no real MTU update happening at hardware level.
> > Thought it is ok to have it mentioned under limitation.
> > Two options are:
> > 1. mark support as partial.
> > 2. remove this patch and support.
> >
> > Please suggest which one is better.
>
> If I get it right, it is not possible to set VF MTU, so I would suggest
> removing MTU update support.
OK.
>
> But you may want to keep the patch for MTU validation, and change
> function name according.
Will change set to validate.
>
> >
> >>
> >> And following logic seems wrong for this case:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> if (lio_dev->linfo.link.s.mtu != mtu) {
> >> ret = lio_dev_change_vf_mtu(eth_dev, mtu);
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Should this functions set lio_dev->linfo.link.s.mtu at least, perhaps?
> >
> > lio_dev->linfo.link.s.mtu represents the MTU supported by the device and
> > it gets updated if there is a change by PF.
>
> So, "lio_dev->linfo.link.s.mtu" is device MTU set by PF, "mtu" is VF
> eth_dev configured value.
> If they are not same, lio_dev_change_vf_mtu() does check if "mtu" is in
> valid range and return success or failure, right?
> So, this is just configuration validation, nothing changed/set here.
>
> >
> >>
> > <...>
> >
>
