[PATCH v4 1/2] app/testpmd: fix vlan offload of rxq

[Ye, MingjinX]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lihuisong (C) <lihuisong at huawei.com>
> Sent: 2022年11月3日 15:01
> To: Ye, MingjinX <mingjinx.ye at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: stable at dpdk.org; Zhou, YidingX <yidingx.zhou at intel.com>; Singh, Aman
> Deep <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Zhang, Yuying
> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] app/testpmd: fix vlan offload of rxq
> 
> 
> 在 2022/11/3 9:28, Ye, MingjinX 写道:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lihuisong (C) <lihuisong at huawei.com>
> >> Sent: 2022年10月28日 10:09
> >> To: Ye, MingjinX <mingjinx.ye at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: stable at dpdk.org; Zhou, YidingX <yidingx.zhou at intel.com>; Singh,
> >> Aman Deep <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Zhang, Yuying
> >> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] app/testpmd: fix vlan offload of rxq
> >>
> >>
> >> 在 2022/10/27 19:02, Ye, MingjinX 写道:
> >>> Hi lihuisong,
> >>>
> >>> This means that queue offloads need to update by recalling
> >>> dev_configure and setup target queues.
> >> Why not update queue offloads in PMD?
> >>> Can you tell me, where is the limitation?
> >> According to other Rx/Tx offload configurations, this may not be a
> limitation.
> >> But it seems to create a dependency on user usage.
> >>
> >> Port VLAN releated offloads are set by ethdev ops. There is no
> >> requirement in ehedev layer that this port needs to stopped when set
> these offloads.
> >> Now it depends on user does recall dev_configure and setup queues to
> >> update queue offloads because of setting these offloads.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Mingjin
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: lihuisong (C) <lihuisong at huawei.com>
> >>>> Sent: 2022年10月26日 17:53
> >>>> To: Ye, MingjinX <mingjinx.ye at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org; Zhou, YidingX <yidingx.zhou at intel.com>; Singh,
> >>>> Aman Deep <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Zhang, Yuying
> >>>> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] app/testpmd: fix vlan offload of rxq
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 在 2022/10/27 1:10, Mingjin Ye 写道:
> >>>>> After setting vlan offload in testpmd, the result is not updated
> >>>>> to rxq. Therefore, the queue needs to be reconfigured after
> >>>>> executing the "vlan offload" related commands.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: a47aa8b97afe ("app/testpmd: add vlan offload support")
> >>>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Mingjin Ye <mingjinx.ye at intel.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>     app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 1 +
> >>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c index
> >>>>> 17be2de402..ce125f549f 100644
> >>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> >>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> >>>>> @@ -4133,6 +4133,7 @@ cmd_vlan_offload_parsed(void
> *parsed_result,
> >>>>>     	else
> >>>>>     		vlan_extend_set(port_id, on);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +	cmd_reconfig_device_queue(port_id, 1, 1);
> >> In addition, I have some comments:
> >> 1) Normally, the parsed function of testpmd command needed to
> >> re-config port and queue needs to check if port status is STOPED. Why
> >> don't you add this check?
> > The check is exist.
> Where is the check? Currently, it seems that this check does not exist in the
> this command parsed function.
Check if the port is forwarded, in the source file test-pmd.c:2835.
> >> If the check is not exist, queue offloads are not updated until the
> >> next port stop/start command is executed. Right?
> > yes
> >> 2) Why is the queue-based VLAN offload API not used?
> > VLAN offload is a port-related configuration. If a single port is
> > changed, the associated queue needs to be all updated in
> > configuration. Therefore, there will be no additional api to configure.
> >>      Like, rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_strip_on_queue. It seems that this
> >> kind of API is
> >>      dedicated to do this.
> >>>> This means that queue offloads need to upadte by re-calling
> >>>> dev_configure and setup all queues, right?
> >>>> If it is, this adds a usage limitation.
> >>>>>     	return;
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>