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 648BE2C2A for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:56:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jun 2017 03:56:01 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,280,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="102700764" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.91]) ([10.237.220.91]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2017 03:56:00 -0700 To: Ajit Khaparde , dev@dpdk.org References: <20170629025142.19404-1-ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com> <20170629025142.19404-3-ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:55:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170629025142.19404-3-ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/7] net/bnxt: fix mtu configuration for the function 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, 29 Jun 2017 10:56:03 -0000 On 6/29/2017 3:51 AM, Ajit Khaparde wrote: > Set the MTU of the device to MAX size possible. What was the failure with existing code? > Signed-off-by: Ajit Khaparde Can you please add the Fixes tag. > --- > drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_hwrm.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_hwrm.c b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_hwrm.c > index e237041..580b2d8 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_hwrm.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_hwrm.c > @@ -2023,8 +2023,7 @@ static int bnxt_hwrm_pf_func_cfg(struct bnxt *bp, int tx_rings) > HWRM_FUNC_CFG_INPUT_ENABLES_NUM_VNICS | > HWRM_FUNC_CFG_INPUT_ENABLES_NUM_HW_RING_GRPS); > req.flags = rte_cpu_to_le_32(bp->pf.func_cfg_flags); > - req.mtu = rte_cpu_to_le_16(bp->eth_dev->data->mtu + ETHER_HDR_LEN + > - ETHER_CRC_LEN + VLAN_TAG_SIZE); > + req.mtu = rte_cpu_to_le_16(BNXT_MAX_MTU); Just question, would this cause larger frames than expected in application? > req.mru = rte_cpu_to_le_16(bp->eth_dev->data->mtu + ETHER_HDR_LEN + > ETHER_CRC_LEN + VLAN_TAG_SIZE); > req.num_rsscos_ctxs = rte_cpu_to_le_16(bp->max_rsscos_ctx); >