On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:04:11 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 25/01/2018 02:11, Lu, Wenzhuo:
> > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > > @@ -305,9 +305,7 @@ struct fwd_engine * fwd_engines[] = {
> > > */
> > > struct rte_eth_rxmode rx_mode = {
> > > .max_rx_pkt_len = ETHER_MAX_LEN, /**< Default maximum frame
> > > length. */
> > > - .offloads = (DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER |
> > > - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_STRIP |
> > > - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP),
> > > + .offloads = 0,
> >
> > Change the default behavior may trigger other problems. I think TX offload
> > could be a good reference. Get the capability and check what's supported
> > first, then ignore the not supported functions with printing a warning but
> > not block anything...
>
> I agree that we should check the capabilities before requesting an offload.
> But I disagree on another point: we should not enable an offload if the
> user did not request it explicitly. It makes things unclear.
> This is a testing tool, it should be close to the ethdev API behavior.
>
> Why these offload flags are silently enabled?
Also all virtual devices ignore CRC strip.
