From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE56282 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:04:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2016 23:04:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,345,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="202392221" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2016 23:04:31 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:06:21 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Yi Zhang Cc: Helin Zhang , Konstantin Ananyev , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20161214070621.GJ18991@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20161214185019.19581-1-zhang.yi75@zte.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161214185019.19581-1-zhang.yi75@zte.com.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/ixgbe:fix max packet length in ixgbevf X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:04:35 -0000 On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 02:50:19AM +0800, Yi Zhang wrote: > Current ixgbevf driver get max_rx_pktlen = 15872, but in fact PF > supports 15872-byte jumbo frame and VF only supports 9728-byte jumbo > frame. If VF is running DPDK driver and set frame_size > 9728 ,PF > running kernel ixgbe driver will report an error and set VF failed. > This patch fixs DPDK ixgbevf driver to get correct jumbo frame size > of VF. > > Signed-off-by: Yi Zhang Hi, I saw you have sent this patch 3 times; are you looking for review? If so, you should not resend it many times, instead, you could reply to your patch if it hasn't got any comments after one week, with something like "some one can help review this?", or even a simple "ping ..." might just work. Besides that, you should Cc the corresponding maintainers, but not "maintainer@some.org", which is just an example: I doubt such email exists. You could get the maintainers from the MAINTAINERS. Take ixgbe as example, it's: Intel ixgbe M: Helin Zhang M: Konstantin Ananyev F: drivers/net/ixgbe/ F: doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst F: doc/guides/nics/intel_vf.rst So for this patch, you should at least Cc (or To) Helin and Konstantin. I have done that for you this time. --yliu > --- > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > index edc9b22..573252c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > @@ -3168,7 +3168,7 @@ ixgbevf_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > dev_info->max_rx_queues = (uint16_t)hw->mac.max_rx_queues; > dev_info->max_tx_queues = (uint16_t)hw->mac.max_tx_queues; > dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024; /* cf BSIZEPACKET in SRRCTL reg */ > - dev_info->max_rx_pktlen = 15872; /* includes CRC, cf MAXFRS reg */ > + dev_info->max_rx_pktlen = 9728; /* includes CRC, cf MAXFRS reg */ > dev_info->max_mac_addrs = hw->mac.num_rar_entries; > dev_info->max_hash_mac_addrs = IXGBE_VMDQ_NUM_UC_MAC; > dev_info->max_vfs = dev->pci_dev->max_vfs; > -- > 2.9.3 >