From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04703FA4F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:34:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2017 07:34:22 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,349,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="63116340" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.137]) ([10.237.220.137]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2017 07:34:21 -0800 To: "Wu, Jingjing" , "Sexton, Rory" References: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CBEF56@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1484581948-10736-1-git-send-email-rory.sexton@intel.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CCA338@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD5C15@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Marjanovic, Nemanja" From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:34:20 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD5C15@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/i40e: set no drop for traffic class 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 15:34:23 -0000 On 2/7/2017 3:25 PM, Wu, Jingjing wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sexton, Rory >> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:38 PM >> To: Wu, Jingjing >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Marjanovic, Nemanja >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] net/i40e: set no drop for traffic class >> >> Perhaps the best solution is as suggested to set rte_eth_conf.dcb_capability_en >> = ETH_DCB_PFC_SUPPORT rte_eth_conf.rxmode.mq_mode = >> ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_FLAG and set rte_eth_dcb_rx_conf.nb_tcs to the number of >> tc's to apply Using this port configuration will give the same behavior of the >> patch and it removes the need for an API change. >> >> Rory >> > Yes, That's what I thought when the v1 patch. So do we still need this patch now? I guess answer is No. The patch is marked as "Rejected" in patchwork, please shout if that is not the case. Thanks, ferruh