Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: force CRC stripping for i40evf

["Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>]

>> Correct, so the broader question would be "what is the correct
>> behavior for an example application, when a port configuration
>> isn't supported by the hardware?".
>>
>> My stand, FWIW, is that igb and ixgbe should have the same
>> semantics as i40e currently has, i.e. return an error to the user
>> if the port is mis-configured, NOT changing the setting behind the
>> users back.
>>
>
> Fine by me, but then it means that the fix haw to include changes
> for all apps plus ixgbe and igb PMDs, correct? :)

Ugh. Correct, I guess. :-)

As for ixgbe and igb - they need a patch changing from silent ignore to
explicit error. Regarding the apps, I guess all the apps that rely on
that disabling CRC stripping always work, need some work. Or should all
the example applications have CRC stripping *enabled* by default? I'd
assume that all DPDK supported NICs has support for CRC stripping and I
guess this is the rational for having it on by default for Intel VFs.

In general, for the example applications, if an application relies on a
property for a port, that the hardware doesn't support -- what would be
the desired behavior? Or is it implied that the example applications
only use a common, minimal set of features that are know to be supported
by all DPDK supported hardware?

Isn't it perfectly valid that some example applications wont run for all
hardware?

Finally, why doesn't l3fwd have the CRC stripped?


Björn