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 B6B7CA0507; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:47:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B86640E78; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:47:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam12on2077.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.237.77]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992ED40691 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:47:07 +0200 (CEST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=d1wEAoiGblLx6j/LEAviAlFpOlPU3hqOA8/s8QCOYK8T1qkSykht1K6rerUzjBLrzfw4MUa/diRZYcPft5W+67aeaZUBFTP+2udtMYSyru1krMSgAf9P2+AouigQ40IAZ6wmwJglB7Lse1CSi1U3CG74GipnjIh8w3OVZJ0RIYVykFg22OFaFlw9+AawAqOoFDd7gq9Wk8e8yi8R+XnCIvpL2fVN/Xm+Lg3n2iUaFJwlyU+auXupmb/WcZ1f08C8BWoqbrwiFJPXWK3dHixLCic9lqlKBI5iIbdK0sna863BI0rgRhNqtGtlEBzuf4zkFj0L5bL4kFcIEWVN2OpF8A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=8iGM9DYj5AHAw+hz8tWXSnNPYQ2pWH1QkqWdJHlEo/s=; b=EkUQzUuwK1yxoVWNtAauFMsx+exGSZiZZ6phIHuVRQWiG3Kk56XlJaeCa7TopW9GCZvyMxf68/HAyJbHMqqfnUh/eRipeeM5lrCdE61OBScqEJmr9ptGOaieN2HQPqj+BGic44devn6drFUkl2BA4h5oZ7/zlDif/mQABdC17XHP9Hp7wvTYb0wjD7r9bxjTP71i8yXLghHMW3QdukVwv+/ozJIn3tw9JT/Re+SlSrciO2NvzDuNxGfy+XLCrKow0igkaM1hhf3h4vAkLD/18Xjs2DfuSjDnkb6ZSIUkIRpIVyjz7o/rBxg+Oz5AM9DLSEC5DfGodR/liFtpPlUbBA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 149.199.80.198) smtp.rcpttodomain=corigine.com smtp.mailfrom=xilinx.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=xilinx.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xilinx.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-xilinx-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8iGM9DYj5AHAw+hz8tWXSnNPYQ2pWH1QkqWdJHlEo/s=; b=ApCLX8Ho/G8F8u1DbJ5Pnepe9KDMXvj89oMBtKancqtDe342x5TGbJ55VouIoLlglkWdz27q1WOAfLUIq47ek/EUNBRSkBMh+NDoaFhrvqcIOr3cvUmQTK+5TcqSAVmQnz0U0IQ3FJV90VFFE7c/e6X53a1v1BmEwuod+a7xwLo= Received: from SA9PR03CA0018.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:20::23) by MWHPR02MB3264.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:65::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5186.14; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:47:05 +0000 Received: from SN1NAM02FT0013.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:20:cafe::b8) by SA9PR03CA0018.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:806:20::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5206.13 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:47:05 +0000 X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 149.199.80.198) smtp.mailfrom=xilinx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=xilinx.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of xilinx.com designates 149.199.80.198 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=149.199.80.198; helo=xir-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com; Received: from xir-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com (149.199.80.198) by SN1NAM02FT0013.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.97.4.188) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.20.5206.12 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:47:05 +0000 Received: from xir-pvapexch01.xlnx.xilinx.com (172.21.17.15) by xir-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com (172.21.17.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.14; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:47:03 +0100 Received: from smtp.xilinx.com (172.21.105.197) by xir-pvapexch01.xlnx.xilinx.com (172.21.17.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2176.14 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:47:03 +0100 Envelope-to: niklas.soderlund@corigine.com, dev@dpdk.org, louis.peens@corigine.com, chaoyong.he@corigine.com, richard.donkin@corigine.com, walter.heymans@corigine.com Received: from [10.71.118.187] (port=56083) by smtp.xilinx.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90) (envelope-from ) id 1njeGF-0000Sk-KG; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:47:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:47:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/nfp: update how MAX MTU is read Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Niklas_S=c3=b6derlund?= , CC: Louis Peens , Chaoyong He , Richard Donkin , Walter Heymans References: <20220420134638.24010-1-walter.heymans@corigine.com> From: Ferruh Yigit In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 7d90f69f-ee97-4624-bff5-08da2832e34b X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MWHPR02MB3264:EE_ X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:149.199.80.198; CTRY:IE; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:CAL; SFV:NSPM; H:xir-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com; PTR:unknown-80-198.xilinx.com; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230001)(4636009)(36840700001)(46966006)(40470700004)(36756003)(2616005)(186003)(66574015)(47076005)(336012)(426003)(4326008)(8676002)(70586007)(316002)(31686004)(36860700001)(44832011)(5660300002)(8936002)(82310400005)(40460700003)(26005)(31696002)(83380400001)(70206006)(15650500001)(54906003)(966005)(508600001)(53546011)(7636003)(110136005)(9786002)(2906002)(356005)(50156003)(43740500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; X-OriginatorOrg: xilinx.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2022 09:47:05.0402 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7d90f69f-ee97-4624-bff5-08da2832e34b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c; Ip=[149.199.80.198]; Helo=[xir-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SN1NAM02FT0013.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR02MB3264 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 4/27/2022 9:37 AM, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about the Checks that ran on this patch in patchwork > [1]. It appears the job ci/iol-x86_64-compile-testing, > dpdk_mingw64_compile have failed on a Windows Server 2019 build. But the > logs from the job appears to be incomplete as it contains only 19 lines > of output and stops without an error in the configuration part of meson. > It is not clear why it failed, patch looks nothing specific to Windows. I have triggered a new build (on top of next-net), please give ~15 minutes. > The failure is only flagged as a warning and not as an error in > patchwork, is it it possible that the job in question fails to capture > all output or that it fails to complete sometimes? > The patchwork warning is to highlight new version of patches needs to be send as reply to previous version. This enables all versions are in same email thread, and this helps reviewer to see previous versions and comments/changes to previous versions easily. Also this makes possible to see all versions and history in one place in mail list archives. There is nothing to do for this version, but please use 'git send-email', '--in-reply-to' option for new patches. > What can we do to on our end to remedy this? My concern is that that the > patch is blocked due to the warning and I'm unclear on how move forward, > sorry if the case is that I'm just impatient. > The patch is not blocked for above reasons, it is in the queue (which is moving a little slow in this release for some operational reasons). > 1. https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220420134638.24010-1-walter.heymans@corigine.com/ > > On 2022-04-20 15:46:39 +0200, Walter Heymans wrote: >> The 'max_rx_pktlen' value was previously read from hardware, which was >> set by the running firmware. This caused confusion due to different >> meanings of 'MAX_MTU'. This patch updates the 'max_rx_pktlen' to the >> maximum value that the NFP NIC can support. The 'max_mtu' value that is >> read from hardware, is assigned to the 'dev_info->max_mtu' variable. >> >> If more layer 2 metadata must be used, the firmware can be updated to >> report a smaller 'max_mtu' value. >> >> The constant defined for NFP_FRAME_SIZE_MAX is derived for the maximum >> supported buffer size of 10240, minus 136 bytes that is reserved by the >> hardware and another 56 bytes reserved for expansion in firmware. This >> results in a usable maximum packet length of 10048 bytes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Walter Heymans >> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund >> Reviewed-by: Louis Peens >> Reviewed-by: Chaoyong He >> Reviewed-by: Richard Donkin >> --- >> drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c | 11 ++++++++++- >> drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.h | 3 +++ >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c >> index b26770dbfb..52fbda1a79 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c >> @@ -692,7 +692,16 @@ nfp_net_infos_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) >> dev_info->max_rx_queues = (uint16_t)hw->max_rx_queues; >> dev_info->max_tx_queues = (uint16_t)hw->max_tx_queues; >> dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = RTE_ETHER_MIN_MTU; >> - dev_info->max_rx_pktlen = hw->max_mtu; >> + /* >> + * The maximum rx packet length (max_rx_pktlen) is set to the >> + * maximum supported frame size that the NFP can handle. This >> + * includes layer 2 headers, CRC and other metadata that can >> + * optionally be used. >> + * The maximum layer 3 MTU (max_mtu) is read from hardware, >> + * which was set by the firmware loaded onto the card. >> + */ >> + dev_info->max_rx_pktlen = NFP_FRAME_SIZE_MAX; >> + dev_info->max_mtu = hw->max_mtu; >> /* Next should change when PF support is implemented */ >> dev_info->max_mac_addrs = 1; >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.h b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.h >> index 8b35fa119c..8db5ec23f8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.h >> +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.h >> @@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ struct nfp_net_adapter; >> /* Number of supported physical ports */ >> #define NFP_MAX_PHYPORTS 12 >> >> +/* Maximum supported NFP frame size (MTU + layer 2 headers) */ >> +#define NFP_FRAME_SIZE_MAX 10048 >> + >> #include >> #include >> >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> >