From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6A1A04B1; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:40:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749DE2BF4; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:40:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C7A2BE3 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:39:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C706D58049E; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:39:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:39:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= FJk386k93HfSF1vvJAHFRFb2xgXbDDgHThVxjMvikww=; b=q06Z2eVA3aQ1p6A1 nnsiLIoYPe12MtxAqKH9Gx2MTjveTGv9u/vk/pjfMcdt9niRz72ZSy/kv3EFku6j dyUhVoHeh/S6rVzC8KqB06jJfdqwqe2kjzrOXQR+DYFw6Jk1prrzSFUxgq3ZNYY+ 6IQrZtfyG+n2gbx67dQISwEx2URv/N0Y/WlZlzPwy9IrU4LJhq0LTtpYmbgd+PGn E3HeESKIYMHJVtbZfmex0kFvLE7UYdAe4Kem4MYL0v4mxDzZ1whMZ+VcEqEBXl7l 1YW0lk54G9XfAkOHQe8y8ZlscmnEAsgJXFrY3l9ORlwg5FbG+zhla+5toWTzntq5 nukG9g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=FJk386k93HfSF1vvJAHFRFb2xgXbDDgHThVxjMvik ww=; b=i57/R/A2nFoC21mhP2Ky/XXaJL/K7MPWNaxNIMiwABcNnAO1XCLosmrnL dyOQpFf72ZOKBmsVcUX4tkQvBbh0hG5IjyGuCh5bVaEv0ChKUkno7838D+B1o+la ce98YfBmmU756H4mTdvub2eYbJwCz6CB20+WU8fJBJjQuIQQvFCdYuZMFfeUX0dM GpyiIY52rn/yzpitjxsoGEWP7jTQGolfePppu+2jah/47E3v+cwjA0s+QpqRxp8l NQdtObEiipKVrfKd/fvpnlHx7uNFkf473xpDfjUfoWYs++HZmMe3+16v4/NshxzO e7iiOq5l8Gp9vRq6dz1+0IkoUWT8g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddthedgudegudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 59578328038F; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:39:54 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: SteveX Yang , Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, beilei.xing@intel.com, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, bernard.iremonger@intel.com, qiming.yang@intel.com, mdr@ashroe.eu, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 21:39:51 +0100 Message-ID: <8358021.KZzejQbnKC@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20201028030334.30300-1-stevex.yang@intel.com> <2034736.YrmxQ9UtPI@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/2] app/testpmd: fix max rx packet length for VLAN packets 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 04/11/2020 21:19, Ferruh Yigit: > On 11/4/2020 5:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/11/2020 18:07, Ferruh Yigit: > >> On 11/4/2020 4:51 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 03/11/2020 14:29, Ferruh Yigit: > >>>> On 11/2/2020 11:48 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>>>> On 11/2/2020 8:52 AM, SteveX Yang wrote: > >>>>>> When the max rx packet length is smaller than the sum of mtu size and > >>>>>> ether overhead size, it should be enlarged, otherwise the VLAN packets > >>>>>> will be dropped. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Fixes: 35b2d13fd6fd ("net: add rte prefix to ether defines") > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: SteveX Yang > >>>>> > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit > >>>> > >>>> Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks. > >>>> > >>>> only 1/2 applied since discussion is going on for 2/2. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure this testpmd change is good. > >>> > >>> Reminder: testpmd is for testing the PMDs. > >>> Don't we want to see VLAN packets dropped in the case described above? > >>> > >> > >> The patch set 'max_rx_pkt_len' in a way to make MTU 1500 for all PMDs, > >> otherwise testpmd set hard-coded 'RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN' value, which makes MTU > >> between 1492-1500 depending on PMD. > >> > >> It is application responsibility to provide correct 'max_rx_pkt_len'. > >> I guess the original intention was to set MTU as 1500 but was not correct for > >> all PMDs and this patch is fixing it. > >> > >> The same problem in the ethdev, (assuming 'RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN' will give MTU > >> 1500), the other patch in the set is to fix it later. > > > > OK but the testpmd patch is just hiding the issue, isn't it? > > > > I don't think so, issue was application (testpmd) setting the 'max_rx_pkt_len' > wrong. > > What is hidden? I was looking for adding a helper in ethdev API. But I think I can agree with your way of thinking.