26/01/2018 08:31, Lu, Wenzhuo: > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > > 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. > Look like it's the case the device ignores the flag if it doesn't have the > capability.
It is a wrong behaviour! If a configuration cannot be applied, it must be an error.
