Hi Thomas,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 5:04 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > Cc: Moti Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > shah...@mellanox.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: do not enable Rx offloads by default > > 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? I don't think it's silently. It's a global configuration. In this case, testpmd is the user, it does request it explicitly. If it's not so explicit, maybe we can consider moving all the configuration to a specific configure file. Talking about why it's enabled by default. Hard to figure out the history. To my opinion, the original designer wants to simulate the common case.
