Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/6] ethdev: add min/max MTU to device info

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 3/22/2019 1:05 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
> On 3/21/2019 1:03 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
>> On 3/19/2019 4:30 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2019 9:45 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
>>>> Building upon the discussion around [1], this series introduces MTU min
>>>> and MTU max variables. It also provides updates to PMD implementations
>>>> for ixgbe, i40e and IGB devices so that these variables are populated
>>>> for use when retrieving device info.
>>>>
>>>> This series was tested with OVS DPDK and functions as expected for the
>>>> drivers listed below. But a wider selection of PMD drivers would have to
>>>> adopt this to ensure jumbo frames functionality remains for drivers not
>>>> modified in the series.
>>>>
>>>> There is also ongoing discussion in [2] regarding overhead to be
>>>> considered with MTU and how this may change from device to device, this
>>>> series uses existing overhead assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> This series was previously posted as an RFC in [3], this revision
>>>> removes RFC status and implements changes received in feedback.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/110959.html
>>>> [2] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-February/124457.html
>>>> [3] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-February/124938.html
>>>>
>>>> Ian Stokes (5):
>>>>    net/i40e: set min and max MTU for i40e devices
>>>>    net/i40e: set min and max MTU for i40e VF devices
>>>>    net/ixgbe: set min and max MTU for ixgbe devices
>>>>    net/ixgbe: set min and max MTU for ixgbe VF devices
>>>>    net/e1000: set min and max MTU for igb devices
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Hemminger (1):
>>>>    ethdev: add min/max MTU to device info
>>>
>>> Hi Ian, Stephen,
>>>
>>> API and driver updates are included in the patchset, but I believe it 
>>> would be
>>> good to have some application code that uses it as well, I assume testpmd
>>> already has some code to set MTU, can you please update it too 
>>> accordingly?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Ferruh, sure I had looked at this but held off in the v1 as I 
>> wasn't sure what best practice was, i.e.  introduce the change to sample 
>> app now or wait unitl all PMDs were on board. If it's preferred to 
>> introduce usage in a sample app then I can do this in the v2.
>>
>>> Also, what do you think starting a unit test (which has a long term 
>>> target to
>>> verify all ethdev APIs) that tests 'rte_eth_dev_set_mtu()' API with 
>>> various values?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds useful, I can take a look for the v2, first steps  might be basic 
>> but can look into it.
>>
>> Ian
>>> In long term all vendors can run this unit test against their HW and 
>>> verify
>>> ehtdev API implementation of their...
>>>
>>
> 
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
> I've posted a v2 of the patchset based on the feedback.
> 
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-March/127344.html
> 
> Unfortunately I did not have time to look at implementing the unit test 
> aspect. I don't think I'll have the bandwidth before the rc1 window next 
> week to implement this aspect but would be happy to look at it possibly 
> in the next 19.08 release if this is acceptable, is the unit test a 
> blocker for the rest of this work?

Thanks for checking it, I believe it is not a blocker but I thought it may be a
good start for verifying ethdev APIs, we can pursue this goal later.