From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3526E1B1C5 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:04:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03EC20AFD; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:04:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=BAqRMqK8k3Fl3Op6rL47hVASoG F8t39e5k83k9ODq+I=; b=XK+Zt+BHZJlFM3clf4DgIZQ4pdaNUxNWmYi5VQQ3vL k0DwAL01j4R3LfyRUWrO6yTFawvDyhWPWR1zSpZsBxCkZrWJvg/s39xPyDebPekB 8IeGIn/7slCzpRjxayD5GtMtj2XWa2vgfHaAuhGkndzddr6yYJc5kBOONDA468qg g= 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=BAqRMq K8k3Fl3Op6rL47hVASoGF8t39e5k83k9ODq+I=; b=iKLA4XZm6QCLZ/s5X9FB/5 gOekW+bxehi5oWMyucxUyobwWOyOl+wv0AEOIgY2PBO4y5J+ACwF/CIApaeEnpvr vJQRGmb7HF6K6723JZvmWD0OcxQ/0gZ80PuHPhALNqsQBge+LocKl9SsD22tzXlK mgINc4JwAbYtwTJbv639qTI3nQ1jnEuhD6Pli7wL/O4rnX78fCbViJOHtUKflnMJ eiRGXKCstfg42GCRcosfVYthfMs/TsaSNB/Doch8nne92f6/Ax3zLo055xG1SXRo t7ouQhj4Cx779U8wJkITf10gGLbTkvrKNY+gQJvt+hGnEsOuqAPM+XD4Fh7blG2w == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 97CCB7E12E; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:04:54 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" Cc: Moti Haimovsky , dev@dpdk.org, shahafs@mellanox.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:04:11 +0100 Message-ID: <60691740.PPs9Gye6m2@xps> In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B715D7A@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1516695081-178919-1-git-send-email-motih@mellanox.com> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B715D7A@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] app/testpmd: do not enable Rx offloads by default 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:04:59 -0000 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?