From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B28F5A29 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:18:24 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id bs8so24499370wib.1 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:18:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=lfyNcD947Odywe1LBbhvVVp1qVVHLbfrK2AuKz8Itxo=; b=OVW132FGY/eQiPMi2K6m6Em+HTWHtz3dz2gDGV4xtJaOZn9OlDVrI/slrYUVd0W6wB RWfTxCYLISChETVodGVn8Va+15AqDg5ysNWW+cXwhLR2ehoxAdMyRh8lsd5tc6DMNKKs 4Vo2PKPPT25+WiBHC5Rld0w/T7UGGUnxqtcreJ6vHbr2trHqPLsB1Kkh+1KRSoSIl8Rv 3EmvZcidX5DXYrkQ1cOCjKiFUA0g9kiB5Nb0vbSUKSm+Tz0yzG/42TxdZpx7jTUrvDjs ZWTJYfhzajDRqJIxXcISFipHJd0uasYTL4zxTQRrqDLgmgWG+4pZD5mHW1Hc/Ochxn4I mPvw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnPdBHHOqU6LysH4AKWE1xpDLrEoNaTWkAExP1+JwKOhRBcB0nEkUTnbB5dJl33j0oK7eF5 X-Received: by 10.180.36.162 with SMTP id r2mr46669658wij.75.1421767104115; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a14sm3388327wib.22.2015.01.20.07.18.22 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:18:23 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:18:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1542807.nc7D9yZXnR@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.17.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <54BE4C70.7050406@6wind.com> References: <1418173403-30202-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DDF46@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BE4C70.7050406@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:18:24 -0000 2015-01-20 13:39, Olivier MATZ: > On 01/20/2015 02:12 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >> So I will fix that in my coming patch series. Just for information, > >> I'm pretty sure that having PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IP_CSUM as not > >> exclusive flag would not require any change anywhere in the PMDs (even > >> in i40e). > > > > Right now - no. > > Though as I said from PMD perspective having them exclusive is a bit preferable. > > Again, I don't see any big difference from upper layer code. > > Sure, it does not make a big difference in terms of code. But > in terms of API, the naming of the flag is coherent to what it is > used for. And it's easier to find a simple definition, like: > > * Packet is IPv4. This flag must be set when using any offload feature > * (TSO, L3 or L4 checksum) to tell the NIC that the packet is an IPv4 > * packet. +1 It's clearer to set PKT_TX_IPV4 in all offload cases of IPv4 packets, and add PKT_TX_IP_CSUM when checksum offload is required. Simply simpler ;) -- Thomas