Skip to content

ON-16435: Replace arch checks with nic capabilies #75

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

ON-16435: Replace arch checks with nic capabilies #75

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5546a0d
ON-16435: Add getter for nic res flags
ligallag-amd Apr 3, 2025
c9bf7ae
ON-16435: Add new ZF_RES_NIC_FLAGS and use them over arch checks
ligallag-amd Apr 3, 2025
bf7eff7
ON-16435: Add ef10ct arch check where capabilitiy is unclear
ligallag-amd Apr 3, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions src/include/zf_internal/tx_send.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -288,6 +288,7 @@ zf_send(struct zf_tx* restrict tx,
}
}
zf_assert_nequal(vi->nic_type.arch, EF_VI_ARCH_EFCT);
zf_assert_nequal(vi->nic_type.arch, EF_VI_ARCH_EF10CT);
Comment on lines 290 to +291
Copy link
Collaborator

@sianj-xilinx sianj-xilinx Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Assert that CTPIO_ONLY capability wasn't set?

/* Strictly speaking, we should call ef_vi_transmit_ctpio_fallback()
* to post a CTPIO fallback descriptor. However, that entry point is
* actually identical to this one, and this code path is also used
Expand Down
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion src/lib/zf/tx_warm.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ int enable_tx_warm(struct zf_tx* tx, zf_tx_warm_state* state)
zf_log_stack_trace(st, "%s: TX warm enabled\n", __func__);
char* ctpio_warm_buf = NULL;
state->ctpio_warm_buf_id = PKT_INVALID;
if( vi->vi_flags & EF_VI_TX_CTPIO && vi->nic_type.arch != EF_VI_ARCH_EFCT ) {
if( vi->vi_flags & EF_VI_TX_CTPIO && vi->nic_type.arch != EF_VI_ARCH_EFCT
&& vi->nic_type.arch != EF_VI_ARCH_EF10CT ) {
Comment on lines +19 to +20
Copy link
Collaborator

@sianj-xilinx sianj-xilinx Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The check here is on whether we need to post a dma fallback, which we don't if we have the CTPIO_ONLY capability, so I think that's what we should use.

int rc = zft_alloc_pkt(&st->pool, &state->ctpio_warm_buf_id);
if( rc < 0 )
return rc;
Expand Down
Loading