On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 03:47:41PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 at 15:43, Bruce Richardson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 12:06:13PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > The interrupt throttling register(ITR) bank 0 value is set to 2, but
> > > to ensure best performance across all systems also set the bank 1 value
> > > to match.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c | 5 +----
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > Further testing has indicated that this patch is simply working around a
> > config issue on kernel driver side[1] and should not be necessary in DPDK.
> >
> > Dropping as rejected in patchwork.
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> > [1] 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=fb096882095e5a8d6b5159e43793d4a38a0c5b1f
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c 
> > > b/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> > > index a8abe0154c..dc3cea0b95 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> > > @@ -899,10 +899,7 @@ static int iavf_config_rx_queues_irqs(struct 
> > > rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > >                                      (0 << 
> > > IAVF_VFINT_DYN_CTLN1_ITR_INDX_SHIFT) |
> > >                                      IAVF_VFINT_DYN_CTLN1_WB_ON_ITR_MASK |
> > >                                      (2UL << 
> > > IAVF_VFINT_DYN_CTLN1_INTERVAL_SHIFT));
> > > -                     /* debug - check for success! the return value
> > > -                      * should be 2, offset is 0x2800
> > > -                      */
> > > -                     /* IAVF_READ_REG(hw, IAVF_VFINT_ITRN1(0, 0)); */
> > > +                     IAVF_WRITE_REG(hw, IAVF_VFINT_ITRN1(1, 
> > > vf->msix_base - 1), 2);
> > >               } else {
> > >                       /* If no WB_ON_ITR offload flags, need to set
> > >                        * interrupt for descriptor write back.
> 
> Why keep this dead code then?
> 
No reason. Just haven't got the time right now to do up a replacement patch
to delete the old dead code.

/Bruce

Reply via email to