[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] app/testpmd: fixes for testpmd application

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] app/testpmd: fixes for testpmd application

[Wei Hu (Xavier)]

These patchset are fixes for testpmd application.

Wei Hu (Xavier) (3):
  app/testpmd: update Rx offload after setting MTU sccessfully
  app/testpmd: fix the initial value when setting PFC
  app/testpmd: fix uninitialized members when setting PFC

 app/test-pmd/cmdline.c |  3 ++-
 app/test-pmd/config.c  | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.23.0

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: update Rx offload after setting MTU sccessfully

[Wei Hu (Xavier)]

From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>

Currently, Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len in the struct
variable named rte_port are not updated after setting mtu successfully
in port_mtu_set function by 'port config mtu <port_id> <value>' command.
This may lead to reconfig mtu to the initial value in the driver when
recalling rte_eth_dev_configure API interface.

This patch updates Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len after
setting mtu successfully when configuring mtu.

Fixes: ae03d0d18adf ("app/testpmd: command to configure MTU")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
---
 app/test-pmd/config.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
index 9669cbd4c..09a1579f5 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
@@ -1216,7 +1216,9 @@ void
 port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
 {
 	int diag;
+	struct rte_port *rte_port = &ports[port_id];
 	struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
+	uint16_t eth_overhead;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
@@ -1232,8 +1234,22 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
 		return;
 	}
 	diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
-	if (diag == 0)
+	if (diag == 0) {
+		/*
+		 * Ether overhead in driver is equal to the difference of
+		 * max_rx_pktlen and max_mtu in rte_eth_dev_info.
+		 */
+		eth_overhead = dev_info.max_rx_pktlen - dev_info.max_mtu;
+		if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead)
+			rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
+						DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
+		else
+			rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
+						~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
+		rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = mtu + eth_overhead;
+
 		return;
+	}
 	printf("Set MTU failed. diag=%d\n", diag);
 }
 
-- 
2.23.0

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: update Rx offload after setting MTU sccessfully

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
> 
> Currently, Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len in the struct
> variable named rte_port are not updated after setting mtu successfully
> in port_mtu_set function by 'port config mtu <port_id> <value>' command.
> This may lead to reconfig mtu to the initial value in the driver when
> recalling rte_eth_dev_configure API interface.
> 
> This patch updates Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len after
> setting mtu successfully when configuring mtu.
> 
> Fixes: ae03d0d18adf ("app/testpmd: command to configure MTU")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
> ---
>  app/test-pmd/config.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> index 9669cbd4c..09a1579f5 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> @@ -1216,7 +1216,9 @@ void
>  port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>  {
>  	int diag;
> +	struct rte_port *rte_port = &ports[port_id];
>  	struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
> +	uint16_t eth_overhead;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
> @@ -1232,8 +1234,22 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  	diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
> -	if (diag == 0)
> +	if (diag == 0) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Ether overhead in driver is equal to the difference of
> +		 * max_rx_pktlen and max_mtu in rte_eth_dev_info.
> +		 */
> +		eth_overhead = dev_info.max_rx_pktlen - dev_info.max_mtu;
> +		if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead)
> +			rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
> +						DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
> +		else
> +			rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
> +						~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;

If the jumbo frame capability supported or not should be tested before setting it.

> +		rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = mtu + eth_overhead;

May need to check against 'dev_info.max_rx_pktlen', if the 'max_rx_pkt_len' is
bigger than this, it will fail in next configure.

Also some divers already does this in PMD code, should we clean that code or not
is a question.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: update Rx offload after setting MTU sccessfully

[Wei Hu (Xavier)]

Hi, Ferruh Yigit

On 2020/1/28 19:27, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>
>> Currently, Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len in the struct
>> variable named rte_port are not updated after setting mtu successfully
>> in port_mtu_set function by 'port config mtu <port_id> <value>' command.
>> This may lead to reconfig mtu to the initial value in the driver when
>> recalling rte_eth_dev_configure API interface.
>>
>> This patch updates Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len after
>> setting mtu successfully when configuring mtu.
>>
>> Fixes: ae03d0d18adf ("app/testpmd: command to configure MTU")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   app/test-pmd/config.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> index 9669cbd4c..09a1579f5 100644
>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> @@ -1216,7 +1216,9 @@ void
>>   port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>>   {
>>   	int diag;
>> +	struct rte_port *rte_port = &ports[port_id];
>>   	struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> +	uint16_t eth_overhead;
>>   	int ret;
>>   
>>   	if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
>> @@ -1232,8 +1234,22 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>>   		return;
>>   	}
>>   	diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
>> -	if (diag == 0)
>> +	if (diag == 0) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Ether overhead in driver is equal to the difference of
>> +		 * max_rx_pktlen and max_mtu in rte_eth_dev_info.
>> +		 */
>> +		eth_overhead = dev_info.max_rx_pktlen - dev_info.max_mtu;
>> +		if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead)
>> +			rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
>> +						DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
>> +		else
>> +			rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
>> +						~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
> 
> If the jumbo frame capability supported or not should be tested before setting it.
> 
>> +		rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = mtu + eth_overhead;
> 
> May need to check against 'dev_info.max_rx_pktlen', if the 'max_rx_pkt_len' is
> bigger than this, it will fail in next configure.
> 
> Also some divers already does this in PMD code, should we clean that code or not
> is a question.
> 
The snippset is adjusted as follows:

if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead && dev_info.rx_offload_capa & 
DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME) {
	rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |= 			
                                          DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
	rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = mtu + eth_overhead;
} else
	rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
					~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;

We only modifies the internal variables of testpmd, don't impact on the 
implementation of the driver.

Thanks for more suggestions.

Xavier

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: update Rx offload after setting MTU sccessfully

[Wei Hu (Xavier)]

Hi, Ferruh Yigit

On 2020/2/12 8:25, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> Hi, Ferruh Yigit
> 
> On 2020/1/28 19:27, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>>> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Currently, Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len in the struct
>>> variable named rte_port are not updated after setting mtu successfully
>>> in port_mtu_set function by 'port config mtu <port_id> <value>' command.
>>> This may lead to reconfig mtu to the initial value in the driver when
>>> recalling rte_eth_dev_configure API interface.
>>>
>>> This patch updates Rx offload capabilities and max_rx_pkt_len after
>>> setting mtu successfully when configuring mtu.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ae03d0d18adf ("app/testpmd: command to configure MTU")
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   app/test-pmd/config.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>> index 9669cbd4c..09a1579f5 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>> @@ -1216,7 +1216,9 @@ void
>>>   port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>>>   {
>>>       int diag;
>>> +    struct rte_port *rte_port = &ports[port_id];
>>>       struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>>> +    uint16_t eth_overhead;
>>>       int ret;
>>>       if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
>>> @@ -1232,8 +1234,22 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>>>           return;
>>>       }
>>>       diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
>>> -    if (diag == 0)
>>> +    if (diag == 0) {
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * Ether overhead in driver is equal to the difference of
>>> +         * max_rx_pktlen and max_mtu in rte_eth_dev_info.
>>> +         */
>>> +        eth_overhead = dev_info.max_rx_pktlen - dev_info.max_mtu;
>>> +        if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead)
>>> +            rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
>>> +                        DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
>>> +        else
>>> +            rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
>>> +                        ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
>>
>> If the jumbo frame capability supported or not should be tested before 
>> setting it.
>>
>>> +        rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = mtu + eth_overhead;
>>
>> May need to check against 'dev_info.max_rx_pktlen', if the 
>> 'max_rx_pkt_len' is
>> bigger than this, it will fail in next configure.
>>
>> Also some divers already does this in PMD code, should we clean that 
>> code or not
>> is a question.
>>
> The snippset is adjusted as follows:
> 
> if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead && dev_info.rx_offload_capa & 
> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME) {
>      rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
>                                           DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
>      rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = mtu + eth_overhead;
> } else
>      rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
>                      ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
> 
> We only modifies the internal variables of testpmd, don't impact on the 
> implementation of the driver.
> 
> Thanks for more suggestions.
> 
> XavierThe code is modified as follows:

diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
if (diag == 0 &&
     dev_info.rx_offload_capa & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME) {
          /*
           * Ether overhead in driver is equal to the difference of
           * max_rx_pktlen and max_mtu in rte_eth_dev_info when the
           * device supports jumbo frame.
           */
          eth_overhead = dev_info.max_rx_pktlen - dev_info.max_mtu;
          if (mtu > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN - eth_overhead) {
                 rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads |= 

                         DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
                 rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len =
                         mtu + eth_overhead;
          } else
                 rte_port->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &= 

                        ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;

         return;
}

We will send V2. Thanks

Xavier

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: fix the initial value when setting PFC

[Wei Hu (Xavier)]

From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>

Currently, the initial values of the local structure variable named
rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode and rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode are different in the
similar part of these two following functions:
	cmd_link_flow_ctrl_set_parsed
	cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed
1) The code snippset in cmd_link_flow_ctrl_set_parsed function:
	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode[2][2] = {
	    {RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
	};

	if (!cmd || cmd == &cmd_link_flow_control_set_rx)
		rx_fc_en = (!strcmp(res->rx_lfc_mode, "on")) ? 1 : 0;
	if (!cmd || cmd == &cmd_link_flow_control_set_tx)
		tx_fc_en = (!strcmp(res->tx_lfc_mode, "on")) ? 1 : 0;

	fc_conf.mode = rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode[rx_fc_en][tx_fc_en];
	<...>
	ret = rte_eth_dev_flow_ctrl_set(res->port_id, &fc_conf);
	<...>
2) The code snippset in cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed function:
	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[2][2] = {
	    {RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
	};

	rx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->rx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
	tx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->tx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
	pfc_conf.fc.mode =
		 rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[rx_fc_enable][tx_fc_enable];
	<...>
	ret = rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set(res->port_id, &pfc_conf);
	<...>
The initial value of rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode is wrong, it should be the
same as rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode.

Fixes: 9b53e542e9e1 ("app/testpmd: add priority flow control")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Xuan Li <lixuan47@hisilicon.com>
---
 app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
index dab22bc4d..a09cb87e1 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
@@ -7087,7 +7087,7 @@ cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed(void *parsed_result,
 	 * the RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE, Respond to the pause frame at the Tx side.
 	 */
 	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[2][2] = {
-			{RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
+		{RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
 	};
 
 	rx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->rx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
-- 
2.23.0

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: fix the initial value when setting PFC

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
> 
> Currently, the initial values of the local structure variable named
> rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode and rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode are different in the
> similar part of these two following functions:
> 	cmd_link_flow_ctrl_set_parsed
> 	cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed
> 1) The code snippset in cmd_link_flow_ctrl_set_parsed function:
> 	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode[2][2] = {
> 	    {RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
> 	};
> 
> 	if (!cmd || cmd == &cmd_link_flow_control_set_rx)
> 		rx_fc_en = (!strcmp(res->rx_lfc_mode, "on")) ? 1 : 0;
> 	if (!cmd || cmd == &cmd_link_flow_control_set_tx)
> 		tx_fc_en = (!strcmp(res->tx_lfc_mode, "on")) ? 1 : 0;
> 
> 	fc_conf.mode = rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode[rx_fc_en][tx_fc_en];
> 	<...>
> 	ret = rte_eth_dev_flow_ctrl_set(res->port_id, &fc_conf);
> 	<...>
> 2) The code snippset in cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed function:
> 	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[2][2] = {
> 	    {RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
> 	};
> 
> 	rx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->rx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
> 	tx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->tx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
> 	pfc_conf.fc.mode =
> 		 rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[rx_fc_enable][tx_fc_enable];
> 	<...>
> 	ret = rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set(res->port_id, &pfc_conf);
> 	<...>
> The initial value of rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode is wrong, it should be the
> same as rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode.
> 
> Fixes: 9b53e542e9e1 ("app/testpmd: add priority flow control")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xuan Li <lixuan47@hisilicon.com>

Not tested but looks reasonable from the code, it would be nice if someone can
test it.

Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: fix the initial value when setting PFC

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/28/2020 11:21 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>
>> Currently, the initial values of the local structure variable named
>> rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode and rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode are different in the
>> similar part of these two following functions:
>> 	cmd_link_flow_ctrl_set_parsed
>> 	cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed
>> 1) The code snippset in cmd_link_flow_ctrl_set_parsed function:
>> 	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode[2][2] = {
>> 	    {RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
>> 	};
>>
>> 	if (!cmd || cmd == &cmd_link_flow_control_set_rx)
>> 		rx_fc_en = (!strcmp(res->rx_lfc_mode, "on")) ? 1 : 0;
>> 	if (!cmd || cmd == &cmd_link_flow_control_set_tx)
>> 		tx_fc_en = (!strcmp(res->tx_lfc_mode, "on")) ? 1 : 0;
>>
>> 	fc_conf.mode = rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode[rx_fc_en][tx_fc_en];
>> 	<...>
>> 	ret = rte_eth_dev_flow_ctrl_set(res->port_id, &fc_conf);
>> 	<...>
>> 2) The code snippset in cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed function:
>> 	static enum rte_eth_fc_mode rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[2][2] = {
>> 	    {RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
>> 	};
>>
>> 	rx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->rx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
>> 	tx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->tx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
>> 	pfc_conf.fc.mode =
>> 		 rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[rx_fc_enable][tx_fc_enable];
>> 	<...>
>> 	ret = rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set(res->port_id, &pfc_conf);
>> 	<...>
>> The initial value of rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode is wrong, it should be the
>> same as rx_tx_onoff_2_lfc_mode.
>>
>> Fixes: 9b53e542e9e1 ("app/testpmd: add priority flow control")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xuan Li <lixuan47@hisilicon.com>
> 
> Not tested but looks reasonable from the code, it would be nice if someone can
> test it.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> 

Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: fix uninitialized members when setting PFC

[Wei Hu (Xavier)]

From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>

Only a part of members in the local structure variable named pfc_conf are
initialized in the function named cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed when
typing "set pfc_ctrl..." command, and others are random values. However,
those uninitialized members may cause failure.

This patch adds clearing zero operation before calling the API named
rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set API with pfc_conf as the input
parameter.

Fixes: 9b53e542e9e1 ("app/testpmd: add priority flow control")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Xuan Li <lixuan47@hisilicon.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 a09cb87e1..b6d8ef0f0 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
@@ -7090,6 +7090,7 @@ cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed(void *parsed_result,
 		{RTE_FC_NONE, RTE_FC_TX_PAUSE}, {RTE_FC_RX_PAUSE, RTE_FC_FULL}
 	};
 
+	memset(&pfc_conf, 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_pfc_conf));
 	rx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->rx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
 	tx_fc_enable = (!strncmp(res->tx_pfc_mode, "on",2)) ? 1 : 0;
 	pfc_conf.fc.mode       = rx_tx_onoff_2_pfc_mode[rx_fc_enable][tx_fc_enable];
-- 
2.23.0

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: fix uninitialized members when setting PFC

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
> 
> Only a part of members in the local structure variable named pfc_conf are
> initialized in the function named cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed when
> typing "set pfc_ctrl..." command, and others are random values. However,
> those uninitialized members may cause failure.
> 
> This patch adds clearing zero operation before calling the API named
> rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set API with pfc_conf as the input
> parameter.
> 
> Fixes: 9b53e542e9e1 ("app/testpmd: add priority flow control")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xuan Li <lixuan47@hisilicon.com>

Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: fix uninitialized members when setting PFC

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/28/2020 11:21 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>> From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>
>> Only a part of members in the local structure variable named pfc_conf are
>> initialized in the function named cmd_priority_flow_ctrl_set_parsed when
>> typing "set pfc_ctrl..." command, and others are random values. However,
>> those uninitialized members may cause failure.
>>
>> This patch adds clearing zero operation before calling the API named
>> rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set API with pfc_conf as the input
>> parameter.
>>
>> Fixes: 9b53e542e9e1 ("app/testpmd: add priority flow control")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xuan Li <lixuan47@hisilicon.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> 

Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] app/testpmd: fixes for testpmd application

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/21/2020 11:44 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> These patchset are fixes for testpmd application.
> 
> Wei Hu (Xavier) (3):
>   app/testpmd: update Rx offload after setting MTU sccessfully
>   app/testpmd: fix the initial value when setting PFC
>   app/testpmd: fix uninitialized members when setting PFC
> 

Since they are not dependent to each other, applied 2/3 and 3/3.

I would like to get more input for 1/3.