> -----Original Message----- > From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coque...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:27 PM > To: Tan, Jianfeng; Ivan Dyukov; y...@fridaylinux.org; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: i.maxim...@samsung.com; heetae82....@samsung.com; > sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix checking of device features > > > > On 06/29/2017 08:13 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Dyukov > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:41 PM > >> To: y...@fridaylinux.org; maxime.coque...@redhat.com; dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: i.maxim...@samsung.com; heetae82....@samsung.com; Ivan > Dyukov; > >> sta...@dpdk.org > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix checking of device features > >> > >> To compare enabled features in current device we must use bit > >> mask instead of bit position. > >> > >> CC: sta...@dpdk.org > >> Fixes: c843af3aa13e ("vhost: access header only") > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ivan Dyukov <i.dyu...@samsung.com> > >> --- > >> lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 8 +++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c > >> index ebfda1c..4fae4c1 100644 > >> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c > >> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c > >> @@ -601,9 +601,11 @@ static inline bool > >> virtio_net_with_host_offload(struct virtio_net *dev) > >> { > >> if (dev->features & > >> - (VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM | VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_ECN | > >> - VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4 | > >> VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6 | > >> - VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_UFO)) > >> + ((1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM) | > >> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_ECN) | > >> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4) | > >> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6) | > >> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_UFO))) > > > > Another problem in this piece of code, we don't support > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_ECN and VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_UFO in vhost-user. We > might consider to remove those two lines? > > It is not really a problem as the feature is never negotiated as not > supported, it would just be a clean-up.
Yes, it's a clean-up to avoid confusion. > > I think we should stick with this version as it targets also -stable. > > Another patch could be sent on top to remove these unsupported feature > bits. Agreed. Thanks, Jianfeng > > Thanks, > Maxime > > > Thanks, > > Jianfeng > > > > > >> return true; > >> > >> return false; > >> -- > >> 2.7.4 > >
