From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E623975 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:20:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2014 05:28:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,455,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="613727165" Received: from kmsmsx153.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.88]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2014 05:31:22 -0800 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.110.14) by KMSMSX153.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:31:21 +0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.182]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:31:20 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: Olivier MATZ , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "'dev@dpdk.org'" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/13] mbuf: add functions to get the name of an ol_flag Thread-Index: AQHQAxI9E1xWwGkhJkSEkAfCUUr49JxlJ+CAgAD8JQCAAaggIIAJasXwgAAT37D//4I2gIAAkl5A Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:31:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1415635166-1364-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1415984609-2484-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1415984609-2484-7-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213AE5A1@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <546B1188.2090203@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213B6BDA@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213B958A@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <5474781F.6040501@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <5474781F.6040501@6wind.com> 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 Cc: "'jigsaw@gmail.com'" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/13] mbuf: add functions to get the name of an ol_flag 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:20:48 -0000 Hi Olivier > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:38 PM > To: Zhang, Helin; Ananyev, Konstantin; 'dev@dpdk.org' > Cc: 'jigsaw@gmail.com' > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/13] mbuf: add functions to get the n= ame of > an ol_flag >=20 > Hi Helin, >=20 > On 11/25/2014 01:15 PM, Zhang, Helin wrote: > >>>> I would be in favor of removing them, or at least the following > >>>> ones (I don't understand how they can help the application): > >>>> > >>>> - PKT_RX_OVERSIZE: Num of desc of an RX pkt oversize. > >>>> - PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW: Header buffer overflow. > >>>> - PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR: Hardware processing error. > >>>> - PKT_RX_MAC_ERR: MAC error. > >>> > >>> Tend to agree... > >>> Or probably collapse these 4 flags into one: flag PKT_RX_ERR or somet= hing. > >>> Might be still used by someone for debugging purposes. > >>> Helin, what do you think? > >> > >> As there is no answer, I suppose you don't care these flags any more. > >> So we can just remove them, right? > > Sorry, I think I care it a bit. I have a lot of emails to be dealt with= , due to the > whole week training. > > Yes, it was added there before new mbuf defined. Why zero? Because of l= ack > of bits for them. > > Unfortunately, I forgot to add them with correct values after new mbuf > introduced. > > Thank you so much for spotting it out! > > > > The error flags were added according to the errors defined by FVL > > datasheet. It could be helpful for middle layer software or > > applications with the specific errors identified. I'd prefer to add the= correct > values for those flags. What do you think? >=20 > Could you elaborate about why it could be useful for an application to ha= ve this > flag in the mbuf? When these flags are set, is the data still present in = the mbuf? > How can the application use this data if the hardware says "there is an e= rror in > the packet"? That mbuf has already been filled with data, even error happens. The error = flags can be used to indicate if the data is valid or not. Though it may not need too many error flags, but error flags with specific = root causes could be helpful for users to know what happens. >=20 > I think a stats counter would do the job here. It already supports statistics collection in i40e. >=20 > Regards, > Olivier Regards, Helin