Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: add the description for option pflink_fullchk in ixgbevf

["Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Traynor [mailto:ktraynor@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 22:38
> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Lu,
> Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Wang, Liang-min <liang-min.wang@intel.com>; daniels@research.att.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: add the description for option pflink_fullchk in ixgbevf
> 
> On 07/06/2019 14:55, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevin Traynor [mailto:ktraynor@redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 20:25
> >> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Lu,
> >> Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Wang, Liang-min <liang-min.wang@intel.com>;
> daniels@research.att.com
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: add the description for option pflink_fullchk in ixgbevf
> >>
> >> On 07/06/2019 04:10, Haiyue Wang wrote:
> >>> Add the detail description for this pflink_fullchk option, when it will
> >>> be used, and it is used for fixing what kind of issue.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can squash the docs into the 1/2 patch.
> >>
> > Yes, I've sent a single patch before: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/54374/
> > After some quiet time, I found that most of commits about doc are a single
> > patch, so I split it into two.
> >
> 
> Personally I don't have an issue either way, but docs with code is the
> preferred method for DPDK so you could squash if you are doing a v2.
> 

One patch sounds better now, thanks!

> >>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst b/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst
> >>> index 975143f..33812a5 100644
> >>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst
> >>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst
> >>> @@ -82,6 +82,24 @@ To guarantee the constraint, capabilities in dev_conf.rxmode.offloads will be
> ch
> >>>
> >>>  fdir_conf->mode will also be checked.
> >>>
> >>> +VF Runtime Options
> >>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> +
> >>> +The following ``devargs`` options can be enabled at runtime. They must
> >>> +be passed as part of EAL arguments. For example,
> >>> +
> >>> +.. code-block:: console
> >>> +
> >>> +   testpmd -w af:10.0,pflink_fullchk=1 -- -i
> >>> +
> >>> +- ``pflink_fullchk`` (default **0**)
> >>> +
> >>> +  Toggle behavior to get ixgbevf link status quickly by checking the
> >>> +  mailbox status or not. If set, the VF will check the PF's link status
> >>> +  and the PF's mailbox running status, which will trigger PF's mailbox
> >>> +  interrupt generation. Otherwise, just check PF's link status, then no
> >>> +  mailbox interrupt in PF.
> >>> +
> >>
> >> wait_to_complete is also considered, so doesn't it mean that
> >> pflink_fullck is not a toggle in all cases e.g. rte_eth_link_get() will
> >> set wait_to_complete=1 and then pflink_fullchk is ignored. At least you
> >> should mention if there is some user visible API like this where the
> >> flag will not result in the behaviour being toggled.
> >>
> >
> > I use "get ixgbevf link status -quickly-" to describe "wait_to_complete = 0",
> > maybe I need some code to make the information more clear.
> >
> 
> I think all you need to add is that rte_eth_link_get() will still use
> the mailbox method regardless of the pflink_fullchk setting, but maybe
> there's more I haven't considered wrt testpmd.
> 

Agree, will update a new patch to make this clear. Thanks!

> >>>  RX Burst Size
> >>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>
> >>>
> >