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 177CC41BAE; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:24:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0196942F96; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:24:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA46D4014F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:24:27 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1675344267; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=D0wo/+YLtqYIC+76YoLZNIoNufK33aRCGv9mKF35TE0=; b=MR5s+yS6xWq39pHQWKTkWM5NSO4QGcVbMnFL+VRIwUR1rwKfRLo1lKLYN+S6ikRsNN7MVO Z5//vhi0jzMdvwmaeGoeoA8O56e1vYGOs9wn7N1LYXv3bZPetzlptEJPfFDt2Y9qXVWGW8 qmu1mNJsaVtjTxLRYV4K4INiSG1YFSo= Received: from mail-pg1-f198.google.com (mail-pg1-f198.google.com [209.85.215.198]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-66-qKFUZ8oPPqWBGXNOFzEgAQ-1; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 08:24:26 -0500 X-MC-Unique: qKFUZ8oPPqWBGXNOFzEgAQ-1 Received: by mail-pg1-f198.google.com with SMTP id 139-20020a630791000000b004ef5cf7541dso1002501pgh.15 for ; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 05:24:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=D0wo/+YLtqYIC+76YoLZNIoNufK33aRCGv9mKF35TE0=; b=SxVo+Xix6b7wgv2g2xWUju9TDQOFb1WWYoIuODVU5L8BxS9zmRz5QY/fHc7iC2AD0l 14TJdz/RDox+4lWW/WB389on4JrEf1LKCfHtqD6YIDdOqN6vrEDm3scWDGjHE9/vslRO W70BjbgHyGOfGz7JvL2OUNYjAuvcp9TXz3wMrEJomA0jI0y1hUnMmVKB8iZpNOu0ch3q g1APToYtTQfVcpcxOIINeoyNqkKj79Bev/k5bO7FDusIvI0bNNSjhMx1LzyAYHuKXc1i 7Uybh4kDsKW/qnfCXoFB39Dyv0tEha+5tkS3kj5dEH9NfT4Z0rlpyA+A7FVHVVDRsOed Hl3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUiwxAXt6qW5NSKbUu9Py+cOKyEE4GZgomzvHCfzkh6z7CZ5hXK RD4EKA75E6jCgrkUYCsFCDkCzJwz42tKAQXCwZ8mUBlj9oL7pC9lhYdy3aHKtRi4v0k45FFHQqP 8D/iJ/f9UeeWPL95GC6A= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4a16:b0:22c:39eb:3723 with SMTP id e22-20020a17090a4a1600b0022c39eb3723mr478833pjh.116.1675344265452; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 05:24:25 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+J6FxqUJLxhrK/bLtOk6NG1UlT+wMIjweffDgpFkMEjX5O3EvmGlsEJ5SW82XvfQHHfV6e5leLEPPsKOA4pcU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4a16:b0:22c:39eb:3723 with SMTP id e22-20020a17090a4a1600b0022c39eb3723mr478830pjh.116.1675344265124; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 05:24:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230202123021.54416-1-simei.su@intel.com> <20230202123632.56730-1-simei.su@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20230202123632.56730-1-simei.su@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:24:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] net/i40e: rework maximum frame size configuration To: Simei Su Cc: beilei.xing@intel.com, yuying.zhang@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, qi.z.zhang@intel.com, qiming.yang@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 1:37 PM Simei Su wrote: > @@ -2467,8 +2466,16 @@ i40e_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > "please call hierarchy_commit() " > "before starting the port"); > > - max_frame_size = dev->data->mtu + I40E_ETH_OVERHEAD; > - i40e_set_mac_max_frame(dev, max_frame_size); > + max_frame_size = dev->data->mtu ? > + dev->data->mtu + I40E_ETH_OVERHEAD : > + I40E_FRAME_SIZE_MAX; > + > + /* Set the max frame size to HW*/ > + ret = i40e_aq_set_mac_config(hw, max_frame_size, TRUE, false, 0, NULL); > + if (ret) { > + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Fail to set mac config"); > + return ret; > + } Reading this patch again. Returning here seems incorrect as we leave rx/tx queue in started state. Don't we need to jump to tx_err label on error? > > return I40E_SUCCESS; > -- David Marchand