From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 0/8] Correct
	XXX_TX_OFFLOAD_NOTSUP_MASK
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:56:35 +0000
Message-ID: <b8d6a921-6801-c1fc-27ae-c54972c263e7@intel.com>
References: <20181027104032.10251-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181027104032.10251-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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.


Am I missing something, do you have a failing usecase/testcase with real values?

> 
> 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(-)
>