From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44284A2EDB for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 15:58:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D12A1BEE3; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 15:58:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7431BED8 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 15:58:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C00521F92; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 02 Oct 2019 09:58:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=2jDFGgKtVnDbVSx9kK7iaNsWmdYM2mFq0fwjC9iXUJ0=; b=OrvRYF6l3h+E QRsXXplLKNlDY196XAr2aeBO1VwWfTiPiYvkHCPDthd18VL2W2ryuEMLbPk2wSC+ gCPR8koRE8HRYGS/zw6hebjG/AjgBiAJZjDU5BH6n/jTH6Hduv5zDqqOIFSfigVS 8brJE/ShjLRc2V4z0hXfIj3l5YCNUqc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=2jDFGgKtVnDbVSx9kK7iaNsWmdYM2mFq0fwjC9iXU J0=; b=A2+/ig4FJgmzRnUz+gJcbHfK+nJ0OplpUL3g4DmTNkqxCumpa1plguvpZ 5fF6bVTdKMPK8xqmC/pZVwRGeAmxeJrNPD8N8CgmDyzis9Hw4Tv6+cuMPdWx+V4h YhtzPeS1twmRC/+vMnuym+Fhu/PZzO9pvF0kQUclWDCi6cPx/zQ+djR6lhIQQx47 rE5GNVYt7EyraheB8hjZkYwhuM4zBqSeegmapLR+V+GhYzNNGckVxcstp3VD3b9O rSabTjSZrKcS/tWLTKUUHU6qw5utT05qMWrkvc+jRZtPhC436ZaIqlpNj+Qp8QmG ah5wFMJoKw8COmsktOjVuGcSPAvUQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrgeeigdejudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B07738005B; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:58:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Matan Azrad Cc: Ferruh Yigit , "dev@dpdk.org" , Andrew Rybchenko , Konstantin Ananyev , Olivier Matz Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 15:58:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20689129.oFjp0lEai2@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1567064832-22457-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add new fields for max LRO session size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 24/09/2019 14:03, Matan Azrad: > From: Ferruh Yigit > > On 9/15/2019 8:48 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > Hi Ferruh > > > > > > From: Ferruh Yigit > > >> On 8/29/2019 8:47 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > >>> It may be needed by the user to limit the LRO session packet size. > > >>> In order to allow the above limitation, add new Rx configuration for > > >>> the maximum LRO session size. > > >>> > > >>> In addition, Add a new capability to expose the maximum LRO session > > >>> size supported by the port. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad > > >> > > >> Hi Matan, > > >> > > >> Is there any existing user of this new field? > > > > > > All the LRO users need it due to the next reasons: > > > > > > 1. If scatter is enabled - The dpdk user can limit the LRO session size created > > by the HW by this field, if no field like that - there is no way to limit it. > > > 2. No scatter - the dpdk user may want to limit the LRO packet size in order > > to save enough tail-room in the mbuf for its own usage. > > > 3. The limitation of max_rx_pkt_len is not enough - doesn't make sense to > > limit LRO traffic as single packet. > > > > > > > So should there be more complement patches to this RFC? To update the > > users of the field with the new field. > > > We already exposed it as ABI breakage in the last deprecation notice. > We probably cannot complete it for 19.11 version, hopefully for 20.02 it will be completed. We won't break the ABI in 20.02. What should be done in 19.11?