From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E3F5A92 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 04:34:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2016 19:34:11 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,612,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="979374974" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2016 19:34:09 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 12 May 2016 19:34:09 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by FMSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 12 May 2016 19:34:09 -0700 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.58]) by shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 13 May 2016 10:33:58 +0800 From: "Wu, Jingjing" To: Nikita Kozlov , "Zhang, Helin" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net: i40e: add VLAN tag size to RXMAX Thread-Index: AQHRp681ylkTqu19zEm8rc8xgWGyk5+2LvrA Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 02:33:58 +0000 Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8E3FB55@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1441003305-24055-1-git-send-email-vladz@cloudius-systems.com> <1c73361e-b5da-8fc2-5953-30f60637c597@gandi.net> In-Reply-To: <1c73361e-b5da-8fc2-5953-30f60637c597@gandi.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net: i40e: add VLAN tag size to RXMAX X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 02:34:11 -0000 Hi, Nikita dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len is different with MTU concept. The max_rx_pkt_len indicates the maximum packet length it can receive, it s= hould be larger than MTU. =20 There is another patch which is enabling set_mtu ops. http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12218/ You can definitely help to review and comment it. Thanks Jingjing > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Nikita Kozlov > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:51 PM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net: i40e: add VLAN tag size to RXMAX >=20 > Hello, >=20 > On 09/ 1/15 07:34 AM, Zhang, Helin wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com] > >> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:42 PM > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: Zhang, Helin; Ananyev, Konstantin; avi@cloudius-systems.com; Vlad > >> Zolotarov > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net: i40e: add VLAN tag size to RXMAX > >> > >> HW requires it regardless the presence of the VLAN tag in the received > frame. > >> Otherwise Rx frames are being filtered out on the MTU-4 boundary. > > Maximum packet length could have different meanings from MTU. I agree > > with you to have it be regardless of vlan tag length. > > > >> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov > >> --- > >> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c > >> b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c index > >> eae4ab0..22aaeb1 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c > >> @@ -3156,7 +3156,7 @@ i40e_rx_queue_init(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq) > >> rx_ctx.hsplit_0 =3D I40E_HEADER_SPLIT_ALL; > >> else > >> rx_ctx.hsplit_0 =3D I40E_HEADER_SPLIT_NONE; > >> - rx_ctx.rxmax =3D rxq->max_pkt_len; > >> + rx_ctx.rxmax =3D rxq->max_pkt_len + I40E_VLAN_TAG_SIZE; > > It needs to take into account the double vlan case, and also VF case. > > It seems it needs more code changes. Thank you for the contribution! > I was wondering if this "bug" haven't been forgotten ? Even if it his not > patched yet maybe it is worth an entry in the documentation ? > > > > Regards, > > Helin > > > >> rx_ctx.tphrdesc_ena =3D 1; > >> rx_ctx.tphwdesc_ena =3D 1; > >> rx_ctx.tphdata_ena =3D 1; > >> -- > >> 2.1.0