From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D3DA0C43; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:08:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0314069E; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:08:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CB640689 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:08:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4H9bQv2q4VzWBp3; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:07:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.103.128] (10.67.103.128) by dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.8; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:08:38 +0800 To: Stephen Hemminger , Andrew Rybchenko CC: Ferruh Yigit , Huisong Li , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <20210709172923.3369846-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <1a891390-1122-6dcf-03e8-1f0b147b30ec@huawei.com> <4e1ae26c-197b-ea45-0860-66c195d1f820@intel.com> <44ea055b-4f43-5cd5-9911-662b6df51623@huawei.com> <78252f7e-3170-344c-fba9-85fcacc36026@intel.com> <00fb2449-cdf1-7af2-1ad9-f16d80def53f@oktetlabs.ru> <20210722074340.054e222c@hermes.local> From: "Min Hu (Connor)" Message-ID: <5bd0e22e-7761-5157-4281-12c64d057033@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:08:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210722074340.054e222c@hermes.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.103.128] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.102) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] ethdev: fix max Rx packet length X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" Hi, Ferruh, What is the status of this set of your patches ? Could they be merged? ÔÚ 2021/7/22 22:43, Stephen Hemminger дµÀ: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:15:04 +0300 > Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > >>> I don't think we care about type of transmission in this level, I assume we >>> define min MTU mainly for the HW limitation and configuration. That is why it >>> makes sense to me to use Ethernet frame lenght limitation (not IPv4 one). >> >> +1 > > Also it is important that DPDK follow the conventions of other software > such as Linux and BSD. Cisco and Juniper already disagree about whether > header should be included in what is defined as MTU; i.e Cisco says 1514 > and Juniper says 1500. > . >