(06) dpdk: device configuration and lifecycle - #1878
daniel-noland wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Validate requested MTUs, use the advertised LRO limit, and adjust RX/TX descriptor counts to driver limits. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Noland <daniel@githedgehog.com>
Configure queues on Dev<Stopped> and access them on Dev<Started>. Failed transitions return the device; Drop stops it only when running. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Noland <daniel@githedgehog.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Noland <daniel@githedgehog.com>
|
Navigate logical layers of code changes, visualize relationships, and explore their blast radius. No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configuration
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. 2 included reviews remain after this review. Your included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 5 reviews per hour. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughDevice configuration now supports MTU limits and advertised LRO sizing. Device lifecycle transitions use stopped and started typestates. RX and TX queue setup adjust descriptor counts through DPDK before configuring each queue. ChangesDevice configuration and lifecycle
Queue descriptor adjustment
Priority: ➖ Normal Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This change adds typed stopped and started states, MTU validation, LRO sizing from device limits, and descriptor-limit adjustment for DPDK devices. No concrete defects were identified, and the change appears ready to merge. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Comment |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
I know that the coverage report for this is empty.
Fixing that in a practical way requires n-vm. That is fine, it just arrives later in the stack. I may be able to pull those tests back here. Still working on that. That said, the logic itself is ready for review