From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 0/8] Correct XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_NOTSUP_MASK Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:24:49 +0000 Message-ID: <31828a0b-6423-6c42-ef56-1d6a2d6cef9c@intel.com> References: <20181027104032.10251-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <20181105085636.GC40842@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Qi Zhang , Beilei Xing , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Shahaf Shuler , Jerin Jacob , Andrew Rybchenko To: Ye Xiaolong Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181105085636.GC40842@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 11/5/2018 8:56 AM, Ye Xiaolong wrote: > Hi, Ferruh > > On 11/02, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 10/27/2018 11:40 AM, Xiaolong Ye wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch series is to correct the wrong setting of >>> XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK in multiple PMDs. >>> >>> Just as the name XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_NOTSUP_MASK indicates, it should be the >>> mask of unsupported features (either not in PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK or in >>> XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK), however, xor will not get desired result here, >>> assume bit 0 of PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK and XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_MAKS are 0 which >>> means corresponding feature is not supported in both sides, then we get >>> value of bit 0 of XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_NOTSUP_MASK which is 0 via xor, it >>> implies that it is supported which doesn't meet our expectation. >> >> Hi Xiaolong, >> >> I am not sure if this is a problem. >> >> PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK should be all TX bits set, from bit 40 to 60 in latest code. >> And XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK can be subset of those bits set. >> >> So your sample doesn't apply here since PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK, TX related bits, >> can't be 0. And (A ^ B) should be same with ~(A & B) for this case. >> > > If this is the case, I think current code is fine. ~(A & B) is just more correct > than (A ^ B) from the logic perspective. Not sure if one is better than other, both give same result. > >> >> Am I missing something, do you have a failing usecase/testcase with real values? > > No real failing issue has been found, I just happened to read the code and > thought it might be a problem. :) OK, if there is no real fail case, I am marking set as rejected. Thanks, ferruh > > Thanks, > Xiaolong >> >>> >>> Correct it by a NOT-AND operation. >>> >>> Xiaolong Ye (8): >>> net/ixgbe: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/avf: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/ena: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/atlantic: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/fm10k: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/qede: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/vmxnet3: correct offload not supported mask >>> net/e1000: correct offload not supported mask >>> >>> drivers/net/atlantic/atl_rxtx.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/avf/avf_rxtx.h | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/e1000/em_rxtx.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/e1000/igb_rxtx.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/ena/ena_ethdev.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/qede/qede_rxtx.h | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_rxtx.c | 2 +- >>> 9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>