Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads default set error

["Zhao1, Wei" <wei.zhao1@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:42 PM
> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; Kevin Traynor
> <ktraynor@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads default set error
> 
> On 6/11/2019 2:28 AM, Zhao1, Wei wrote:
> > Hi,  Kevin Traynor
> > 	This patch is based on Yigit Ferruh's suggestion in the following mail.
> > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-May/132178.html
> > If we take your propose, it means we do need any patch at all.
> > Because the code implement now is just that scheme, we will do "or" for
> offloads.
> > Hello Ferruh,What is your comment?
> 
> My comment was if the user not set the queue offload use the default one, so I
> think we don't need to track individual offload options.
> 
> But also there is slightly difference between user not set the value and
> 'offloads' being zero. What if user set the offloads value to '0' to disable all
> offloads, it will use default values in this case.
> 

Yes, we can not distinguish between not set the value and using 0 to disable it, so if the bit is 0 how can we 
Know the actual purpose of users?  I think it is hard track individual offload as Kevin Traynor said.

> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevin Traynor [mailto:ktraynor@redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 6:10 PM
> >> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix offloads default set
> >> error
> >>
> >> On 10/06/2019 07:45, Wei Zhao wrote:
> >>> There is no need to use default offloads configuration if offloads
> >>> configuration has been pass down from uplayer.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It doesn't seem like the right fix to me. It means if a user
> >> enable/disable one offload in the command line they are silently
> >> changing from the default behaviour of other offloads? I could
> >> understand if the user set all offloads in one go through a mask but not
> when they are set seemingly independent.
> >>
> >> It looks like you need to track which ones have been enabled/disabled
> >> by the user, and use the default for for the other offloads.
> >>
> >>> Fixes: 5e91aeef218c ("app/testpmd: fix offload flags after port
> >>> config")
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 6 ++++--
> >>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> >>> 0148b0a..b5f5801 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>> @@ -2815,7 +2815,8 @@ rxtx_port_config(struct rte_port *port)
> >>>  	for (qid = 0; qid < nb_rxq; qid++) {
> >>>  		offloads = port->rx_conf[qid].offloads;
> >>>  		port->rx_conf[qid] = port->dev_info.default_rxconf;
> >>> -		port->rx_conf[qid].offloads |= offloads;
> >>> +		if (offloads)
> >>> +			port->rx_conf[qid].offloads = offloads;
> >>>
> >>>  		/* Check if any Rx parameters have been passed */
> >>>  		if (rx_pthresh != RTE_PMD_PARAM_UNSET) @@ -2839,7
> >> +2840,8 @@
> >>> rxtx_port_config(struct rte_port *port)
> >>>  	for (qid = 0; qid < nb_txq; qid++) {
> >>>  		offloads = port->tx_conf[qid].offloads;
> >>>  		port->tx_conf[qid] = port->dev_info.default_txconf;
> >>> -		port->tx_conf[qid].offloads |= offloads;
> >>> +		if (offloads)
> >>> +			port->tx_conf[qid].offloads = offloads;
> >>>
> >>>  		/* Check if any Tx parameters have been passed */
> >>>  		if (tx_pthresh != RTE_PMD_PARAM_UNSET)
> >>>
> >