Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] i40evf: Report error if HW CRC strip is disabled for Linux PF hosts

["Topel, Bjorn" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>]

>> >> +     /* For Linux PF hosts, VF has no ability to disable HW CRC strip,
>> >> +      * and is implicitly enabled by the PF.
>> >> +      */
>> >> +     if (!conf->rxmode.hw_strip_crc) {
>> >> +             vf = I40EVF_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_VF(dev->data->dev_private);
>> >> +             if ((vf->version_major == I40E_VIRTCHNL_VERSION_MAJOR) &&
>> >> +                 (vf->version_minor <= I40E_VIRTCHNL_VERSION_MINOR)) {
>> >> +                     /* Peer is Linux PF host. */
>> > Can you reword above comments?
>> > It just means the host is not DPDK PF host driver, it could be Linux
>> > driver, and possible others (e.g. FreeBSD, VMWARE?).
>>
>> Sure, I'll reword it! The broader question, however, is this correct for non-
>> Linux/non-DPDK PF drivers?
>> For FreeBSD I'll dig into the code, but for VMWARE (and I'd assume Microsoft
>> Windows) it'll be harder.
>>
>> Do you have any insights on the behavior for the non-open i40e PF drivers?
>>
>> From the documentation [1], it's unclear whether non-Linux/non-DPDK PF
>> drivers are supported. My interpretation was that only DPDK and Linux PF
>> hosts are supported for Fortville NICs.
> I guess only DPDK is different, though I am not sure.
> As all other NIC drivers were developped by the same organization.
> Even assuming that FreeBSD supports both configuration, it will not be a problem,
> as DPDK just doesn't support, and nothing wrong.

I verified against the FreeBSD ixl-1.4.27 driver, and it
behaves (in terms of rxq crcstrip) the same way.

It would be a problem if the non-Linux/non-DPDK drivers had
it (rx crcstrip) *disabled* by default. (Further, being able to
actually change the setting from a VF would be nice as well. :-))
This doesn't seem to be case, though.

So, I'll change the wording from "Linux PF hosts" to "non-DPDK PF
host". Would that be OK?


Björn