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 6973FA0C41; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:10:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08205410EC; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:10:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3170E410EB for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:10:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1630998621; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hWQEvvrFJYiL+CJVagF9S+/g7L311Zxqsf8vQp9ONkU=; b=EwbtHPx/f+hGHKehEC43AcwWFilQy7tNnF0t59DsijWQuroZQh5qxq99+I3gBbRJ9s2+ij iLgwh0ATEKMF5FytjJukMtyJ8U+TBhXOwCV+Sw2TS58PGqYmzAc54tGP5XozrouqPRkGSF wjtUdvUMS3BjkuK/CvG3CNq7Phoa5i4= Received: from mail-lj1-f199.google.com (mail-lj1-f199.google.com [209.85.208.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-111-6HrM7WNBM_mwCTGljGUthA-1; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 03:10:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 6HrM7WNBM_mwCTGljGUthA-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f199.google.com with SMTP id a17-20020a2e7f11000000b001dbbb444489so4473336ljd.0 for ; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hWQEvvrFJYiL+CJVagF9S+/g7L311Zxqsf8vQp9ONkU=; b=MfOuBLNmBux8P1Rs8okaou0OgE0e0ukm7vksn+8QZq8+jV1g+Z+DWigceYerjuwE0v XkWLziNWUePRb7TAK4hoW8Y+J2zD1xHOtBagZOH6tk3aLbWl1FWD0RMzdOEf6k9pVyap BOmn6+0yToiXcJFb01lnu2N+1QlYDnn1F792tHedzTSEQjy2EepXAR7hGz3ZmdyaO8+P MFM/iXAH17AVuZDD1QEs6j1UmFC38qgRWJkKOKD1gm2IT7SEqLeb7gU+nMfZOdAep6Ut Rysh6olDskEkiOXMycX+TIjmG689lEeKiV3eNKuVab8nKyvW50Wsqg3lW6oTc/NPdp7K xcZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/k2BrXImqOjqPfpKahbAAII9LeDUWRrDn4Z9stpawezw3Qp7d XSdTCNiOmmc0Goxn4fsvdLZcVzJJwva+D3bsJje/1ApEHmHfQWYDUoYCQcBOvCVMVrynJ/CpPuC SPiknWmI4YLjA6OJMJ2Y= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:368e:: with SMTP id d14mr4792256lfs.217.1630998608888; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:10:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCkQp8M1foFV7x/g++gBkA0lEazDS9AL4tYMtOFeEq8sVHHtRQ3zv/c//OiBuqORslRE4ogVY/anixrFUx2U4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:368e:: with SMTP id d14mr4792242lfs.217.1630998608699; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:10:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210907064537.74596-1-wenjun1.wu@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20210907064537.74596-1-wenjun1.wu@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:09:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: Wenjun Wu , "Yigit, Ferruh" Cc: dev , Qiming Yang , Qi Zhang Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net/ice: revert removing IPID from default hash field 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 Sender: "dev" On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:05 AM Wenjun Wu wrote: > > We try to refine default RSS for IP fragment packets. However, > the change will lead to more serious errors. The scenario that > there is overlap/conflict between the new characteristics and the > existing ones has not been supported, so non-fragment packets > and fragment packets cannot share the same hash fields, or > all related profiles will be removed. > > Therefore, IPID field is necessary for fragment packets. > > Fixes: cf37e1e5e9d2 ("net/ice: fix default RSS hash for IP fragment packets") > > Signed-off-by: Wenjun Wu - If this is a revert of cf37e1e5e9d2, maybe it is simpler to drop the original change in next-net before it gets pulled in the main repo. - A similar change has been applied to net/iavf? Is it still relevant? -- David Marchand