From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A284AAD for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:28:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g62so79864502lfe.3 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 01:28:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1sVbsVXq75IeY5LIY2Xl6OFRImYWofVoTxxAtfBmFJ4=; b=Uxla0DkXKdJHwEuItEo5EgC9WsBGuYMTq6JlQIVA2Tq66CCEhNhQ1M+9+l5or0EP0E WLnn8Xj8KM0/i9iJMErIIHc8Ba5wSRDJDOus1r5tW8wbODgB9WV8+i95EkeARO76stEM YVCLAJdtmqCr96fSJAGPV4ZZIHgBmrGmh2qAtfojINkii2vzM7JAAolNRYplGxcFjVCa Xq/CL7O5M1j8sdMksYukbOZp5Ojd1B5y7hopdmRpCsiWPTR2Ko2JYQO7ECYJu1Mb/tA3 ofJ5/JPewIUNCOyINlMdiuPKZFLsyQsTwSIx5z/+ZNyJXMf4T9nAsrMjgUUgUBLg1jzS n+Lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1sVbsVXq75IeY5LIY2Xl6OFRImYWofVoTxxAtfBmFJ4=; b=eHCzHLzydYXPCVHr+pmKGgu6Dkd7ou5Z51842mYVu1aU2AdRsa+vUoB9gFsA48c+m9 b+MwpzOdHNC0qv9E1P9KgRe8qNdRp9AXiraVgFutmi2CeTAL0AnZMOzKbJLAI9tAUJKw qsIUMHNJ8AMSKf+jAzIg3FoLhS7kbh1gXYRo7hmdFFob3ukvaUdzqbJzEphKORFAEFEQ IR83Tgsht12NRi40Pk1IrJ3j8vV5eXMx2I1QlVibPDzcdAIs5cmvoHmf+TtRgrnCBCeH dNu8uxNhA6FxcfuNoUUbaTX7CB/yV0WzRv6Ihp56/AX6AwgJzBpKAxbHdCn50f0FiWXQ nBvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutX8NUvPNvLiqGhjtnTF/KKPtNvXQTHkLQdAuRVDDSYz2lLOhbE92OGg3VST4ET6imA X-Received: by 10.25.208.131 with SMTP id h125mr1914338lfg.214.1469176125960; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p102sm2651167lfi.9.2016.07.22.01.28.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Chen, Jing D" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Wang, Xiao W" , "Lin, Xueqin" Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:28:44 +0200 Message-ID: <2478490.ThySIcn2fe@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D044DF694@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1469089470-5764-1-git-send-email-xiao.w.wang@intel.com> <91849256.XuHjXYpFvk@xps13> <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D044DF694@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/fm10k: fix RSS hash config X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 08:28:46 -0000 2016-07-22 08:23, Chen, Jing D: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 2016-07-21 09:35, Wang, Xiao W: > > > From: Chen, Jing D > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c > > > > > @@ -2159,8 +2159,8 @@ fm10k_rss_hash_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > > > > > > > > > > PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE(); > > > > > > > > > > - if (rss_conf->rss_key_len < FM10K_RSSRK_SIZE * > > > > > - FM10K_RSSRK_ENTRIES_PER_REG) > > > > > + if (key && (rss_conf->rss_key_len < FM10K_RSSRK_SIZE * > > > > > + FM10K_RSSRK_ENTRIES_PER_REG)) > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > if (hf == 0) > > > > > > > > It's also possible that app wants to update rss key and not expect to update hash > > > > function. > > > > Is that indicate we shouldn't return error in case hf == 0? > > > > > > > > > > If the app just wants to update RSS key, it needs to read out the RSS config first, > > then > > > change only the key field. This is what testpmd does for this operation. > > > > > > hf == 0 will disable RSS feature, I think we should return error to protect multi- > > queue. > > > > Jing, do you confirm we can apply this patch, please? > I think we need some rework or more explanations here. It is not reasonnable to wait RC5 for such a fix. Either it is not important and postponed to 16.11 or you submit a v2 very shortly for 16.07. Please advise