Hi Wei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wei Zhao
> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 2:33 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Wu, Jingjing <[email protected]>; Zhao1, Wei
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix MAT enable for VF in multicast
What is MAT means ?
>
> In ixgbe PMD code, all vf ars set with bit IXGBE_VMOLR_ROMPE, which make vf
> accept packets that match the MTA table, if some vf update IXGBE_MTA in
> function ixgbe_vf_set_multicast, then all vf will receive packets from these
> address.
> So thhere is need to set VMOLR register bit ROPE onlty after this vf has been
> set multicast address. If this bit is when pf host doing initialization, this
> vf will
> receive multicast packets with address written in MTA table. Align to ixgbe pf
> kernel 5.3.7 code to fix this bug.
There are some typo in you commit log.
>
> Fixes: 00e30184daa0 ("ixgbe: add PF support")
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_pf.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_pf.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_pf.c index
> 4b833ff..0f4b96b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_pf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_pf.c
> @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ ixgbe_vf_reset_event(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> uint16_t vf)
> int rar_entry = hw->mac.num_rar_entries - (vf + 1);
> uint32_t vmolr = IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_VMOLR(vf));
>
> - vmolr |= (IXGBE_VMOLR_ROPE | IXGBE_VMOLR_ROMPE |
> + vmolr |= (IXGBE_VMOLR_ROPE |
> IXGBE_VMOLR_BAM | IXGBE_VMOLR_AUPE);
> IXGBE_WRITE_REG(hw, IXGBE_VMOLR(vf), vmolr);
>
> @@ -503,6 +503,7 @@ ixgbe_vf_set_multicast(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> uint32_t vf, uint32_t *msgbuf)
> const uint32_t IXGBE_MTA_BIT_MASK = (0x1 << IXGBE_MTA_BIT_SHIFT) -
> 1;
> uint32_t reg_val;
> int i;
> + u32 vmolr = IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_VMOLR(vf));
>
> /* Disable multicast promiscuous first */
> ixgbe_disable_vf_mc_promisc(dev, vf);
> @@ -525,6 +526,9 @@ ixgbe_vf_set_multicast(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> uint32_t vf, uint32_t *msgbuf)
> IXGBE_WRITE_REG(hw, IXGBE_MTA(mta_idx), reg_val);
> }
>
> + vmolr |= IXGBE_VMOLR_ROMPE;
> + IXGBE_WRITE_REG(hw, IXGBE_VMOLR(vf), vmolr);
Please correct me if I'm wrong
My understand is MTA table is shared by all VFs (I guess also pf), but what if
two VFs both enable multi-cast but with different address filter?
Should we prevent the second one to enable multi-cast if any conflict be
detected? Otherwise there still will be unexpected behavior.
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.7.5
