Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/iavf: use mbuf packet type instead of dynfield for LLDP

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 03:20:48PM +0000, Ciara Loftus wrote:
> Instead of using a dynamic mbuf field to flag a packet as LLDP, instead
> utilise the mbuf packet type field as the identifier instead. If the
> type is RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER_LLDP the packet is identified as LLDP. This
> approach is preferable because the use of dynamic mbuf fields should be
> reserved for features that are not easily implemented using the existing
> mbuf infrastructure. No negative performance impacts were observed with
> the new approach.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus@intel.com>

For ABI compatibility, though, I think we need to keep the old method of
identifying LLDP packets there too. While I completely agree that using
packet types is the better approach, we need to go through a deprecation
process for the old dynamic field method, though.

> ---
>  doc/guides/nics/intel_vf.rst           | 16 +++++++++-------
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_03.rst |  1 +
>  drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c   | 13 ++++++++-----
>  drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_rxtx.c     |  3 +--
>  drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_rxtx.h     |  8 +++-----
>  drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_testpmd.c  | 20 +++++---------------
>  drivers/net/intel/iavf/rte_pmd_iavf.h  | 10 ++++++++++
>  7 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/intel_vf.rst b/doc/guides/nics/intel_vf.rst
> index bc600e4b58..197918b2e8 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/intel_vf.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/intel_vf.rst
> @@ -668,19 +668,21 @@ Inline IPsec Support
>  Diagnostic Utilities
>  --------------------
>  

<snip>
>  

> +RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_pmd_iavf_enable_tx_lldp, 26.03)
> +void
> +rte_pmd_iavf_enable_tx_lldp(bool enable)
> +{
> +	iavf_tx_lldp_enabled = enable;
> +}
> +
Rather than a private function, this looks something that should be a
feature flag or capability somewhere, e.g. like TSO.