Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 10/11] net/octeontx_ep: Receive data path function added
From: Ferruh Yigit <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-26 15:33:50
On 1/18/2021 9:36 AM, Nalla Pradeep wrote:
Function to deliver packets from DROQ to application is added. It also fills DROQ with receive buffers timely such that device can fill them with incoming packets. Signed-off-by: Nalla Pradeep <redacted>
<...>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -327,7 +333,8 @@ otx_ep_init_droq(struct otx_ep_device *otx_ep, uint32_t q_no, /* OQ configuration and setup */ int otx_ep_setup_oqs(struct otx_ep_device *otx_ep, int oq_no, int num_descs, - int desc_size, struct rte_mempool *mpool, unsigned int socket_id) + int desc_size, struct rte_mempool *mpool, + unsigned int socket_id)
Again can you please fix these were it is first introduced? <...>
+/* Check for response arrival from OCTEON TX2
+ * returns number of requests completed
+ */
+uint16_t
+otx_ep_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue,
+ struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
+ uint16_t budget)
+{
+ struct otx_ep_droq *droq = rx_queue;
+ struct otx_ep_device *otx_ep;
+ struct rte_mbuf *oq_pkt;
+
+ uint32_t pkts = 0;
+ uint32_t new_pkts = 0;
+ int next_fetch;
+
+ otx_ep = droq->otx_ep_dev;
+
+ if (droq->pkts_pending > budget) {
+ new_pkts = budget;
+ } else {
+ new_pkts = droq->pkts_pending;
+ new_pkts += otx_ep_check_droq_pkts(droq);
+ if (new_pkts > budget)
+ new_pkts = budget;
+ }
+ if (!new_pkts) {
+ /* otx_ep_dbg("Zero new_pkts:%d\n", new_pkts); */
+ goto update_credit; /* No pkts at this moment */
+ }
+
+ /* otx_ep_dbg("Received new_pkts = %d\n", new_pkts); */
+
+ for (pkts = 0; pkts < new_pkts; pkts++) {
+ /* Push the received pkt to application */
+ next_fetch = (pkts == new_pkts - 1) ? 0 : 1;
+ oq_pkt = otx_ep_droq_read_packet(otx_ep, droq, next_fetch);
+ if (!oq_pkt) {
+ otx_ep_err("DROQ read pkt failed pending %lu last_pkt_count %lu new_pkts %d.\n",
+ droq->pkts_pending, droq->last_pkt_count,
Both 'pkts_pending' & 'last_pkt_count' are 64bit and using '%lu' format
specifier breaks the build for 32bit:
error: format ‘%lu’ expects argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, but
argument 4 has type ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int’} [-Werror=format=]
Can you please use 'PRIu64' instead?