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 A4B3AA0543; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:12:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D36940A7F; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:12:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10634021D for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:12:26 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1670321546; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=woQN1kY++FSGMU09NE9+Cm6xPI9EtfLVZdSz5HQCWZk=; b=IdNXTFqaCDHaoAV9aCCblF7JWTSbJZVTUvQXu/o+skdcwyWSnuidJzR/n5Z2JEYkmISCum qXo2b2G1zWNRT/X6aBCVH01dva9tpKrZJQWaKzO1VC/T3iO+gcQVoEWI4OHxg4riwIt8Ye sQOHVv3iu6qDE4yF/49u00/pDKvnqGA= Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-467-g9KkDNyYOKKJnnWW8NOvWQ-1; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 05:12:24 -0500 X-MC-Unique: g9KkDNyYOKKJnnWW8NOvWQ-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id t12-20020adfa2cc000000b0022adcbb248bso3015617wra.1 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 02:12:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:subject:from:references:cc:to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=woQN1kY++FSGMU09NE9+Cm6xPI9EtfLVZdSz5HQCWZk=; b=XhEvpWqQ95bJkydeXuBrxopTUmReqCXuP+0JbXyDRhPweMvWASWtoZkHlJIfngSq14 LqP7Lqtsl2y44KxaG/n+N+aO7QrXAKLsyzhzoiUp6GKvRCa8F5KvbuLN0Zq/7bE0rBQP vEExpE2p+lYyvqNT1bqh7btwKEg6oqbfvWmri5aaj6D2tUTxUnzhaHSgs/1C/dY3bLoK O9GqYdeNqDzGgBuGDPg5KA9NP0Cx2ynwbw8BVlXgUHNyWR2llO/WAyymfgHUARem0prY 0xY3vWP85gkfA3s15AznGHdHLLsmpeyXXzpZW56fH6ruuso6ViMSUS7KZ60syX/Rn1nl AHpw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnLQHqxdeOw7cYi13CDWd6DScV7jtIYLLqE9r/XWAyvaVaQUcS5 4tQHen+Ry9/f8XufuhuKvJUQFcYU18C0yd8Gz6Nc97DGbU4cBHcimtZVk4Y1PFJNErMRaKmbxoQ Khto= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e34c:0:b0:242:19db:9d0b with SMTP id n12-20020adfe34c000000b0024219db9d0bmr22588500wrj.559.1670321543540; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 02:12:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4hqTNyxxtyHVsZN5udoLxSKoIUyg0fb1/z6M4D0yin/LWyhTVSKOJQT5t6o+xwk9QLCSkc0Q== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e34c:0:b0:242:19db:9d0b with SMTP id n12-20020adfe34c000000b0024219db9d0bmr22588478wrj.559.1670321543328; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 02:12:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([78.19.98.83]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k4-20020adfd844000000b0023659925b2asm16582112wrl.51.2022.12.06.02.12.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Dec 2022 02:12:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <35c0ca6f-33d9-4554-dd0b-72ef97966922@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 10:12:21 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 To: "Zhang, Qi Z" , David Marchand , "Wang, Jie1X" Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" , "Yuan, DukaiX" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yang, SteveX" , "Yang, Qiming" , "Xing, Beilei" , "Zhang, Yuying" , Luca Boccassi , "Xueming(Steven) Li" References: <20221110034524.467431-1-jie1x.wang@intel.com> From: Kevin Traynor Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/i40e: fix X722 NIC receives jumbo frame packets In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 06/12/2022 00:01, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > Hi David: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Marchand >> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:15 PM >> To: Kevin Traynor ; Zhang, Qi Z >> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; Yuan, DukaiX ; Wang, Jie1X >> ; dev@dpdk.org; Yang, SteveX >> ; Yang, Qiming ; Xing, >> Beilei ; Zhang, Yuying >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/i40e: fix X722 NIC receives jumbo frame packets >> >> Hi Kevin, Qi, >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:48 AM Zhang, Qi Z >> wrote: >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] net/i40e: fix X722 NIC receives jumbo frame >>>>> packets >>>>> >>>>> For NIC I40E_10G-10G_BASE_T_X722, when the port is configured with >>>>> link speed, it cannot receive jumbo frame packets. >>>>> >>>>> Because it set maximum frame size failed when starts the port that >>>>> the port link status is still down. >>>>> >>>>> This patch fix the error that starts the port will force set >>>>> maximum frame >>>> size. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 2184f7cdeeaa ("net/i40e: fix max frame size config at port >>>>> level") >>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Wang >> >> It seems this fix has been missed in 21.11 (for the reason we discussed with >> Kevin offlist). >> >> Our QE reported that reception of jumbo frames seems broken in the 21.11 >> branch. >> >> I can reproduce with a X710 nic: v21.11.0 is fine, but v21.11.1 and >> v21.11.2 show the following error log. >> Dec 05 05:41:37 xxx ovs-vswitchd[53585]: >> ovs|00183|dpdk|ERR|i40e_set_mac_max_frame(): Set max frame size at >> port level not applicable on link down >> >> The log goes away with backporting this current patch. >> Can this be added to 21.11 queue, and have Intel validate this issue? > > Yes, the patch has been verified on X722. Great, can a test also be added to the Intel LTS release validation for this? Looking at the chain of fixes, it appears this issue was present on multiple 21.11.x and 20.11.x releases. > As the patch Cc stable, we can assume it will be captured in 21.11.3 by default. > No, the original commit where the chain of fixes started was not tagged with 'Fixes:' so this chain of fixes looked like it was fixing an issue that originated in 22.03. It is applied now and will be part of 21.11.3. thanks, Kevin. >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> -- >> David Marchand >