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 9637F460E3; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:33:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3808340267; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:33:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lf1-f42.google.com (mail-lf1-f42.google.com [209.85.167.42]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACFB40151 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:33:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53e384d00f4so417793e87.1 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:33:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1737750832; x=1738355632; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0zjPm4vETV3IIpRS9cMP6fwWwQU0tdB4QxZQWSmhYEc=; b=U0atXnTTXT4zekq8ceKL5USeQHu31GqoSWka5q4kD4y5syRxbZn1e0nJzwnKrZ3HTz lbcSViyVwsaxYxV90vbXhh8wk426yTf7XkLYBh+ZKQTuEbDvgjd/kuHBL61d8jAyoAvS qUNfLv1vSv7gWIJ7hXtiEUx6UNN315MFxCTtk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737750832; x=1738355632; 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=0zjPm4vETV3IIpRS9cMP6fwWwQU0tdB4QxZQWSmhYEc=; b=QZRsIZ7r8p/eB74ZXjkMgXDBqMQ8GiSQGGqFcf/IcYeOpHH/1SMGVwaeos7OnN1Vlz kC8hsBHUuxYYSyQUphl3WNpPJCEzYltgJ6gZ/1L/Mi/5hCmEUXpFhZkRTk5sIeWRYC9w hA4D7lUYvy4pmEOCq6Rd0vAMyofhftWQgC/qWcqIPOQV3vDcvgRqj+S+hySzVU4YBvWY 5ZOF+GPKR/R4WA2f5hs3cNtov8GT6NTyWVNEf5mPNtW4XfQtcGQo+dxGbxyUZ8OPtaAD byaTa9RGRsBzT8KCp75hKpH+g1I42KQgiFW1mCXJ7qp144Rl2YIHCdirgojIzgsSLX9c 1njw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWCpv7UqKNwCX37BH6cbhYDQNKY2nnbyC3sH9RuQ0tIeCcmkj4r0cUJvV2c3CZLYmaMVV0=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLDH9g9asISULYtMJ2dBamTFVi2HTxwYMOMom2EPM/Rc2ZFTDh BcqVrIs21TklS+QowJCxzGlTpFqAmGTZNT3o8al6i/oFrqne8C6jQNuzgqR5Ac1+Z41AlDeJoYq enDTImW4m39ww/TchinIlpXXsaKx8Ez3vYU9nBg== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvycH9gFLyIYPJAMSmmw7tWnv8ZPsoJwQd5AB3mPWKjp3WULoPtz8tUgJjd5Ql 0A0TjC3hmqgCLGuAPCzMv6RVJEcGgrJHTQER+6l+NhFaL2AwHPWdhFOEC82RuSWJRXh8PMyJH5P LSVWXSzAucPee5KlyJs0jd X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEvr4BN3eLa31MnXevbpWEhQFQMR4APFkAdjCA5/Q1+BHpQK0ETFtKAm90jWgudpOxvOI2lkVTrI7hI1XYrsiM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1505:b0:300:1f36:8fea with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-3072cb1f622mr42346031fa.7.1737750832174; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:33:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250117145838.40206-1-npratte@iol.unh.edu> <20250117145838.40206-3-npratte@iol.unh.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Nicholas Pratte Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:33:41 -0500 X-Gm-Features: AWEUYZkwiaxLk2WzdAWdw2WIhgE8ijlDL07D4M0OTdUuRrE-Ezs8fkzvch14DPA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] dts: add mtu update and jumbo frames test suite To: Patrick Robb Cc: yoan.picchi@foss.arm.com, ian.stokes@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, luca.vizzarro@arm.com, thomas@monjalon.net, thomas.wilks@arm.com, dmarx@iol.unh.edu, paul.szczepanek@arm.com, dev@dpdk.org, Alex Chapman 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 Thank you for the feedback, see my comments below! >> + current_mtu = testpmd_shell.show_port_info(0).mtu >> + self.verify(current_mtu is not None, "Error grabbing testpmd MTU value.") >> + if current_mtu and ( >> + current_mtu >= STANDARD_MTU + VENDOR_AGNOSTIC_PADDING and mtu == STANDARD_MTU >> + ): >> + self.send_packet_and_verify(pkt_size=larger_frame_size, should_receive=True) > > > I don't understand when this condition may be true - can you explain? Thanks! I added some additional testing to Alex's MTU update tests to check the forwarding of standard 1500 byte packets for MTU sizes greater than 1500. Practically speaking this means that the suite will check 1500 byte packets for 2400, 4800 and 9000 byte MTU sizes. In all these cases, packets of size 1509 should be forwarded. In the case of a 1500 byte MTU, this 1509 byte packet should be dropped. Now the reason I decided to put these test 1500 byte packet tests in the test suite at all is because the 'jumbo_frames' suite performs a similar test; an MTU size of 9000 bytes is set, and standard 1500 byte packets are checked for forwarding. The original 'mtu_update' doesn't include this sort of testing in its test plan, but I figured I'd add on this testing so that both MTU tests are more uniform in their functional tests. It's a good question because this exact bit of change in the test is what transformed this suite into an MTU test for both '--max-pkt-len' and 'port config mtu' since each of these options use different components of ethdev. > >> >> + else: >> + self.send_packet_and_verify(pkt_size=larger_frame_size, should_receive=False) >> + >> + @func_test >> + def test_runtime_mtu_updating_and_forwarding(self) -> None: >> + """Verify runtime MTU adjustments and assess packet forwarding behavior. >> + >> + Test: >> + Start TestPMD in a paired topology. >> + Set port MTU to 1500. >> + Send packets of 1493, 1500 and 1509 bytes. > > > I think 1493 should be 1491. Nice one! I'll fix that. > >> >> -- >> 2.47.1 >> > > Thanks, other than a couple questions here and in the associated patch this looks good. I can merge on Tuesday. > > Reviewed-by: Patrick Robb > Tested-by: Patrick Robb