From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81072A04C9 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:41:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE7E1DB2A; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:41:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com (mail-ot1-f67.google.com [209.85.210.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433901DB20 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:41:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id o8so6310650otl.4 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pcnaT8bVSsDQ6ASdWubQWbdkiDeEczt8KAGFr1gLjGE=; b=SFbUMLp5OipbD44OndygRIn0yybvPuF8pIiL2jhqLykxyrnODFcGnkJm3ip4ppsXki kphhpMFv6dtwZkdPTJHHE/N371ykC65QZql4j3153ZFnmoZIft2ieEediqV+dK543+T3 o1AHVCLwkEpI1Yz9xQR47jte2ak/n6DDDxHG4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pcnaT8bVSsDQ6ASdWubQWbdkiDeEczt8KAGFr1gLjGE=; b=ejr/72JfoFVL2FI8P7HWnnSOnVUnhk47KqBejSGcUvxuTiBsx6xzgwVQKHLud2amVx dTtHvo6b3uVh9pQqx0ouGzW+2gUICehGrijOwtY2SvBiC0h6am5fXZcMLOd2JffqqOuC h30gxmfk0FtH2b3A/Pa9LFTwstZ8sOCiBTDQ4a0HVSX6imnFKBfTl4g4JJHgGT7b7JH3 slndNDwjkjjT3yfNBbIa9vEaRyuIJMYSqcs+bHFTY98304ADQobTmzhGGnYv9bVrqkEc ozaOR/rs7r10ALthhi9nI1oCADKGgdPcWKM9WY4FSo3t5ENRbTfpkuzEpS7hmrmFlLdP U32w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530LzidqDhAGRLlJifyT5PA6CnxQBoTkAdsyTTBBilvjKmd1ioEh 5cjDEePppL6kSvpgP5YU+Mse1Pxb+PwwoEldc89Cig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydIhXxVInZYthaJyt3JAurCEZb8v/x58X14j1AYWrejwvI0uZmot9AKG+wBNnYKmP4QxI54LaY7EbpFc3mh8w= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1cae:: with SMTP id l46mr24161791ota.172.1600454493259; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200909155302.28656-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> <20200909155302.28656-3-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lance Richardson Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:41:22 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Ajit Khaparde , Somnath Kotur , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/12] net/bnxt: fix rxq/txq get information X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:41 AM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > - qinfo->conf.rx_drop_en = 0; > > + qinfo->conf.rx_drop_en = 1; > > Why 0 is wrong but 1 is correct? > > Technically 'rx_drop_en' is a user configuration, which is set via > 'rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()' API. > > bnxt seems not honoring this config option at all. > > Based on HW capability, I think two things can be done, > 1) Configure the HW based on config request, and return configured value in > 'bnxt_rxq_info_get_op()'. see 'ixgbe'. > > 2) If HW is not configurable, check the value in 'rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()' > a) return error if unsupported value requested. see 'sfc'. > b) log a warning and overwrite the requested config with whatever supported. > And for both a & b, return current config in the 'bnxt_rxq_info_get_op()' > > > qinfo->conf.rx_deferred_start = rxq->rx_deferred_start; > > + qinfo->conf.offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; > Hi Ferruh, Apologies, this somehow didn't make it to my inbox. I believe case (2) applies here, rx_drop_en is not currently configurable in hw, so this change was intended to accurately report the effective value. I'm not sure whether (2a) or (2b) would be better, but (2b) seems less likely to cause issues for existing applications. > > This is for queue specific offloads, you are returning port offloads. > As far as I can see bnxt doesn't have any queue specific offload, so this can be > dropped. It wasn't clear to me whether this was intended to report the difference between the offload configuration for the queue and the offload configuration for the port or the effective offload configuration for the queue. I noticed that several other PMDs (e.g. mlx5, netvsc, sfc) report the offload configuration for the port in rx/tx_queue_info_get(). The sfc PMD reports the offload configuration for the port combined with queue-specific offloads, based on those examples this seemed to be correct. I guess you're saying those are also incorrect? Thanks, Lance