From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix adjust priority for drop queue
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:55:03 -0700
Message-ID: <20171024175502.GB20667@yongseok-MBP.local>
References: <8c8fb4394ba85f5bda005119cbfc851a3b728fa6.1508844772.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-ve1eur01on0062.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.62])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E599D23A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:55:17 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8c8fb4394ba85f5bda005119cbfc851a3b728fa6.1508844772.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
> Drop queue should also adjust their priority according the most specific
> layer in the pattern they are matching to avoid dropping all the traffic.
> 
> Fixes: 8086cf08b2f0 ("net/mlx5: handle RSS hash configuration in RSS flow")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> index 26cf593af..549ae6916 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> @@ -1185,6 +1185,14 @@ priv_flow_convert(struct priv *priv,
>  		parser->queue[HASH_RXQ_ETH].ibv_attr->priority =
>  			attr->priority +
>  			hash_rxq_init[parser->layer].flow_priority;
> +	} else if (parser->drop) {

Isn't this condition redundant?

And the following could be more consistent (and readable) with the similar code
above. But I'd leave it as your choice.

	if (parser->drop) {
	...
	} else if (parser->queues_n == 1) {
	...
	} else {
	...
	}

> +		/*
> +		 * Drop queue priority needs to be adjusted to
> +		 * their most specific layer priority.
> +		 */
> +		parser->drop_q.ibv_attr->priority =
> +			attr->priority +
> +			hash_rxq_init[parser->layer].flow_priority;
>  	}
>  exit_free:
>  	/* Only verification is expected, all resources should be released. */
> -- 


Thanks,
Yongseok