> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Lu, Wenzhuo > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:40 PM > To: Rami Rosen <ramir...@gmail.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update ICE doc > > Hi Rami, > > From: Rami Rosen [mailto:ramir...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:55 AM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update ICE doc > > Hi, > In I40E DPDK nic guide, https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/i40e.html, > MDD does not appear. > [Wenzhuo] As I know, this feature is not supported by i40e. I40e can send > such packets. That’s why we want to mentions this different behavior for > ice. > > In IXGBE DPDK nic guide, https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/ixgbe.html, > MDD appears, but in the known issues section. > [Wenzhuo] Actually, for ixgbe, we want to mention MDD as a limitation > (the same section as known issue). Because it’s more like our driver’s > robust is not so strong. We have to ask the APP to provide the right L2/L3 > length. (The reason is it’s not effective to let the driver inspect the packet > to get the right length.) But this ice behavior is more like a feature. To my > opinion, it’s reasonable to drop such packets. That’s why I put it in the > feature section. > > I think MDD is supported on both. > > just wonder, for the sake of consistency, is it worth to add such a section > also for these nics ? > > Other than that, > > Acked-by: Rami Rosen > <ramir...@gmail.com<mailto:ramir...@gmail.com>>
Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel. Thanks Qi
