Hi Shahaf,
Please see bellow,
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:16:15AM +0200, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Ethdev Rx offloads API has changed since:
>
> commit ce17eddefc20 ("ethdev: introduce Rx queue offloads API")
>
> This commit support the new Rx offloads API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>
> Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
> ---
I have to remove my acked-by on this patch, there is an issue.
<snip/>
> +/**
> + * Checks if the per-queue offload configuration is valid.
> + *
> + * @param priv
> + * Pointer to private structure.
> + * @param offloads
> + * Per-queue offloads configuration.
> + *
> + * @return
> + * 1 if the configuration is valid, 0 otherwise.
> + */
> +static int
> +priv_is_rx_queue_offloads_allowed(struct priv *priv, uint64_t offloads)
> +{
> + uint64_t port_offloads = priv->dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
> + uint64_t queue_supp_offloads =
> + mlx5_priv_get_rx_queue_offloads(priv);
> + uint64_t port_supp_offloads = mlx5_priv_get_rx_port_offloads(priv);
> +
> + if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) !=
> + offloads)
> + return 0;
> + if (((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads))
port_offloads is wrongly named, it should be device_offloads and
this make things clearer.
Seems the mask is wrong as port_supp_offloads is a subset of
device_offloads.
For my understanding you want this statement to be true when the request
offloads is not supported, in such situation it should be a negative
mask i.e. ~(port_supp_offloads | queue_supp_offloads).
> + return 0;
> + return 1;
> +}
The same issue is present in Tx side.
Regards,
--
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND
