From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Clearasu <clearasu@gmail.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:49:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B21D58@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C0B8A5ED-D3F0-45CC-87B4-B52B812AA7D6@gmail.com>
Hi,
yep, it should be supported in dpdk 2.0.
Did you setup rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len inside your rte_eth_conf?
You need to setup both max_rx_pkt_len and jumbo_frame.
You can have a look how dpdk examples doing it.
Konstantin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Clearasu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 2:38 AM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
>
> Hi Wenzhuo,
>
> Thanks. For some reason, we have to stick to dpdk 2.0 for now. Is multi-segment mbuf supported in this version (any known issue
> with multi-seg in this version?) or do we have to upgrade to latest dpdk version for multi-segment support?
>
> Clarylin
>
> > On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Clarylin,
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Clarylin L
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 4:24 AM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
> >>
> >> ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts was set to be the rx function. Receiving packets
> > I see this function is already deprecated. Do you use an old version? Would you like to try the newest code?
> >
> >> smaller than mbuf size works perfectly. However, if an incoming packet is
> >> greater than the maximum acceptable length of one "mbuf" data size, receiving
> >> does not work. In this case, isn't it supposed to use mbuf chaining to receive?
> >>
> >> The port has both jumbo_frame and enable_scatter being on. are these two
> >> flags good enough to make mbuf chaining going?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-29 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-28 20:24 Clarylin L
2016-03-29 1:10 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2016-03-29 1:37 ` Clearasu
2016-03-29 2:38 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2016-03-29 9:49 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B21D58@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=clearasu@gmail.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
/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).