From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/i40e: set no drop for traffic class
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:34:20 +0000
Message-ID: <c88e8b4f-a9d3-6602-e975-5acdd5b56b48@intel.com>
References: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CBEF56@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <1484581948-10736-1-git-send-email-rory.sexton@intel.com>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CCA338@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <EAC303C93824C94DB804849C22B752B30D2D491A@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD5C15@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Marjanovic, Nemanja" <nemanja.marjanovic@intel.com>
To: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 "Sexton, Rory" <rory.sexton@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04703FA4F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Feb 2017 16:34:22 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD5C15@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.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 2/7/2017 3:25 PM, Wu, Jingjing wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sexton, Rory
>> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:38 PM
>> To: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Marjanovic, Nemanja <nemanja.marjanovic@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] net/i40e: set no drop for traffic class
>>
>> Perhaps the best solution is as suggested to set rte_eth_conf.dcb_capability_en
>> = ETH_DCB_PFC_SUPPORT rte_eth_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
>> ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_FLAG and set rte_eth_dcb_rx_conf.nb_tcs to the number of
>> tc's to apply Using this port configuration will give the same behavior of the
>> patch and it removes the need for an API change.
>>
>> Rory
>>
> Yes, That's what I thought when the v1 patch. So do we still need this patch now?

I guess answer is No.
The patch is marked as "Rejected" in patchwork, please shout if that is
not the case.

Thanks,
ferruh