From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD39DA0528; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40DB1DC5C; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ed1-f47.google.com (mail-ed1-f47.google.com [209.85.208.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9836B1DC57 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:21:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ed1-f47.google.com with SMTP id d15so42347120edm.10 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 09:21:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UEQ+KLvdOVK4qdtWHTZtwv72ma+rDrFFSysFkiWaOUE=; b=IFe2pD8ms22DUA9rZImtZv7XcaA8tw3JBu2H4VR5uXdnkN8AO177ULiSTR2LeHZUOt yUceoIRUHEljUHE9IhVoOVtKIjYgAzLMUHE5ZpitmqO0iSDdUyDqX7DKsWy+Zo/W65aY cY6khD+ABIY+O7f+56LBWW+BCXtwnGX60QuKI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UEQ+KLvdOVK4qdtWHTZtwv72ma+rDrFFSysFkiWaOUE=; b=r4y1eL5BYC4dxzUxlsLqdgaimuSWzGuKfoQMrQJqgTdczk270Jay4LyyYgW1/Sr2Vj OiqqdZkocAc/TIjkPJrAqykpTs70BtWBgE4UNNs4rOU0uJOGSyLWJWnopRg3CdBm1bRf GJ5b8D8Uw7Q9ErRhNu30oeRVGU0igMNA6Ety5LDtv3v4x413viVodu/hv10gcqzG+C4Y +JC7r2H8opnLG9rGX4YPsZ0/XFkVAkXaKc37a7soBtKqKvRptwknt4vo+R2k34tx7kV7 Crigg7CMu108uKGlH+5fKE33vTUymJ6K91xFGwoGP6RPFroFpbe244dPOsqz7pA5uTjC JCYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zIfK1hpHIzY2UEdnpD52ydkUF0SUcxG05QXRfHSbJczK7vWQS g9Dw0ROpzuQSUJ4/UHPQyOXYh12YWHnuI57IeE9bk9+H/UU6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwf7ycp32zkrA2Oz9svMMg8piK4UMCS1pkkurkJZGs6xoZl53d9mQo/C4Nc4NsKHR8sW5NSfWten1RJdcPbeo4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1ac4:: with SMTP id ba4mr65153715edb.60.1594225301099; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 09:21:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Daniel Kirichok Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:21:30 -0400 Message-ID: To: dts@dpdk.org Cc: Lincoln Lavoie , David Liu , Owen Hilyard Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c3ad3c05a9f08085" Subject: [dts] LRO Feature Question X-BeenThere: dts@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: test suite reviews and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dts-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dts" --000000000000c3ad3c05a9f08085 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, For developing the LRO test case, the related functionality that it looks like testpmd has is to configure per port Rx offloading to be tcp_lro and to set the maximum LRO aggregated packet size. Would only these two configurations be enough to thoroughly test the LRO functionality? Thanks, Dan -- Dan Kirichok UNH InterOperability Laboratory 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824 dkirichok@iol.unh.edu www.iol.unh.edu --000000000000c3ad3c05a9f08085 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

For developing the LRO test case, the relat= ed functionality that it looks like testpmd has is to configure per port Rx= offloading to be tcp_lro and to set the maximum LRO aggregated packet size= . Would only these two configurations be enough to thoroughly test the LRO = functionality?

Thanks,
Dan
--
Dan Kirichok =

= UNH InterOperability Laboratory

21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824

dkirichok@iol.= unh.edu

www.iol.unh.edu



--000000000000c3ad3c05a9f08085--