On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:01 PM Ivan Malov [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Ajit,

On 01/10/2021 00:48, Ajit Khaparde wrote:

quoted

::::

quoted

diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
index 97ae52e17e..7a8da3d7ab 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c

@@ -1485,10 +1485,36 @@ static void
  init_config_port_offloads(portid_t pid, uint32_t socket_id)
  {
         struct rte_port *port = &ports[pid];
+       uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
         uint16_t data_size;
         int ret;
         int i;

+       rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
+       rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
+       rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID;
+
+       ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(pid, &rx_meta_features);
+       if (ret == 0) {
+               if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
+                       TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action FLAG will not affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",

Log level info might be a little too noisy?

Do you really think so? But main() sets default log level to DEBUG, quote:
     rte_log_set_level(testpmd_logtype, RTE_LOG_DEBUG);

If I go for DEBUG instead of INFO here, it won't get any quieter, will it?

You are right. It won't.
But then three extra messages per port will stand out. But that's my opinion.
Maybe you could log the message when a flow is created with any of the
meta features?

quoted

quoted

+                                   pid);
+               }
+
+               if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK)) {
+                       TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action MARK will not affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",
+                                   pid);
+               }
+
+               if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID)) {
+                       TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow tunnel offload support might be limited or unavailable on port %u\n",
+                                   pid);
+               }

:::

quoted

--
Ivan M