From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: <shahafs@mellanox.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>, <ravi1.kumar@amd.com>,
<rasesh.mody@cavium.com>, <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] ethdev: convert remaining apps to new offload API
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:52:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16e64db5-eec2-c00b-4f32-312681cb3ad6@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2074528.iGUK7qq6Nh@xps>
On 07/04/2018 03:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 04/07/2018 13:16, Andrew Rybchenko:
>> On 07/03/2018 12:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/link_status_intr.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/link_status_intr.rst
>>> @@ -137,10 +137,7 @@ The global configuration is stored in a static structure:
>>> static const struct rte_eth_conf port_conf = {
>>> .rxmode = {
>>> .split_hdr_size = 0,
>>> - .header_split = 0, /**< Header Split disabled */
>>> - .hw_ip_checksum = 0, /**< IP checksum offload disabled */
>>> - .hw_vlan_filter = 0, /**< VLAN filtering disabled */
>>> - .hw_strip_crc= 0, /**< CRC stripped by hardware */
>>> + .offloads = DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP,
>> Is it intended that CRC strip was disabled before and now it is becoming
>> enabled?
> Yes, I consider the comment to be the real intent.
OK. I see. Most likely yes. I agree.
>>> --- a/examples/bbdev_app/main.c
>>> +++ b/examples/bbdev_app/main.c
>>> @@ -64,11 +64,7 @@ static const struct rte_eth_conf port_conf = {
>>> .mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_NONE,
>>> .max_rx_pkt_len = ETHER_MAX_LEN,
>>> .split_hdr_size = 0,
>>> - .header_split = 0, /**< Header Split disabled */
>>> - .hw_ip_checksum = 0, /**< IP checksum offload disabled */
>>> - .hw_vlan_filter = 0, /**< VLAN filtering disabled */
>>> - .jumbo_frame = 0, /**< Jumbo Frame Support disabled */
>>> - .hw_strip_crc = 0, /**< CRC stripped by hardware */
>>> + .offloads = DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP,
>> Is it intended that CRC strip was disabled before and now it is becoming
>> enabled?
> Yes, I consider the comment to be the real intent.
>
>>> --- a/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
>>> +++ b/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
>>> @@ -97,11 +90,6 @@ static struct rte_eth_txconf tx_conf = {
>>> },
>>> .tx_free_thresh = 32, /* Use PMD default values */
>>> .tx_rs_thresh = 32, /* Use PMD default values */
>>> - .txq_flags = (ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTSEGS |
>>> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOVLANOFFL |
>>> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMSCTP |
>>> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMUDP |
>>> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMTCP)
>>> };
>>>
>>> enum {
>>> @@ -808,38 +796,29 @@ test_set_rxtx_conf(cmdline_fixed_string_t mode)
>>>
>>> if (!strcmp(mode, "vector")) {
>>> /* vector rx, tx */
>>> - tx_conf.txq_flags = 0xf01;
>> I'd say that 100% correct equivalent would be:
>> tx_conf.offloads &= ~(DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_INSERT |
>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM | DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SCTP_CKSUM |
>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS);
> I'd say it is a really crappy code, and probably tuned for Intel devices only.
>
>> I guess the function may be called few times with different mode set.
>> If so, similar fixes should be applied below as well.
>>
>>> tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
>>> tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 0;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 0;
>> port_conf.rxmode.offloads &= ~(DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM |
>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER);
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> } else if (!strcmp(mode, "scalar")) {
>>> /* bulk alloc rx, full-featured tx */
>>> - tx_conf.txq_flags = 0;
>> I think here we should enable offloads listed above to have
>> full-featured Tx:
>> tx_conf.offloads |= ...
>>
>>> tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
>>> tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 1;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 0;
>>> + port_conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
>> port_conf.rxmode.offloads &= ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER;
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> } else if (!strcmp(mode, "hybrid")) {
>>> /* bulk alloc rx, vector tx
>>> * when vec macro not define,
>>> * using the same rx/tx as scalar
>>> */
>>> - tx_conf.txq_flags = 0xf01;
>> As in similar case above.
>>
>>> tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
>>> tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 1;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 0;
>>> + port_conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
>> As in similar case above
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> } else if (!strcmp(mode, "full")) {
>>> /* full feature rx,tx pair */
>>> - tx_conf.txq_flags = 0x0; /* must condition */
>> As in similar case above.
>>
>>> tx_conf.tx_rs_thresh = 32;
>>> tx_conf.tx_free_thresh = 32;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.hw_ip_checksum = 0;
>>> - port_conf.rxmode.enable_scatter = 1; /* must condition */
>>> + port_conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER;
>> port_conf.rxmode.offloads &= ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>> In general I think that it would be really good to avoid changes in
>> behaviour when technical changes are done.
> I agree, but in this case, it is impossible to know what was the real intent.
> And I am perfectly fine breaking bad code.
> The other option is to just remove the file. Maybe the best option?
I have no strong opinion. As far as I can see there is no maintainer for
it...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-04 12:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-08 22:41 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: remove all " Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-08 21:52 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-09 8:04 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-06-11 9:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-11 11:00 ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-06-11 11:18 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-11 11:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-06-11 11:35 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-11 11:35 ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-06-11 12:12 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-06-29 1:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-02 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/5] remove old ethdev " Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-02 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] doc: remove code from KNI example guide Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-02 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] test: remove unused configuration for bonding Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-02 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] ethdev: convert remaining apps to new offload API Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-04 11:16 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-07-04 12:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-04 12:52 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2018-07-02 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] net/fm10k: remove unused constant Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-02 21:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] ethdev: remove old offload API Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-03 12:28 ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-07-04 11:31 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-07-03 18:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/5] remove old ethdev " Ferruh Yigit
2018-07-04 18:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-07-02 21:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: remove all " Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=16e64db5-eec2-c00b-4f32-312681cb3ad6@solarflare.com \
--to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=rasesh.mody@cavium.com \
--cc=ravi1.kumar@amd.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).