From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EE3AAA0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:10:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DA821B5E;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 04:10:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 04:10:47 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=vAxgzqJRM24iLhE6esWPbyvV9b
 qgChessa9PEp3bdpA=; b=Soa/6+gRNVvkCszoJfIiZ9l03bV7lhQwPwwIxwfKI9
 vxuOAExopdz4uVLQy+Fw7mh7neD55///mnJtnNryH7x7MwvY5NmVWmjhZVJnRMPH
 sMNCR9IghePTgVQfCf+23FOqRFoBmftDuydJZ4G68v6kJfU34b6/T3ynHHLv+BHK
 Q=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=vAxgzq
 JRM24iLhE6esWPbyvV9bqgChessa9PEp3bdpA=; b=Vw0uoRAByeTr8tkJnmZPnf
 bBGyx60URt8u+po6F6eYpCpsBvT8/FXuLXflCBKu9TliszZY2NtgBkHjQuXhsNah
 YnTlsjB5gtLlLzAjzNmv1UE/8P1ZwIVBHh+I52cbVR5Q3bAIUoWt1rSxVbnlAtJB
 0WoIR3UiwZVZ96OvaWRpLu9RmhuVEV8/77806XxWi/+foIYHmjZOIeb1/3m4ab/Y
 FE8tfv8HdCt59OJtiwnC4R5KyALVcmdyW14vCYPQStF+/N/fgXAwCKbxlpRe6iWj
 F2wxtzgUjlQHvHLNJwyzzsx83npVFtHN2ymTXxa/b+6QsLK2Yh15yNCQm/fEmd0w
 ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:B6zVWv6V_eIbizwr1ELj3r90UNZB6qX0ZECJAmG8AZRiJOfMqr9uYg>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 629D1E5085;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 04:10:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" <xuemingl@mellanox.com>,
 Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
 Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:10:45 +0200
Message-ID: <1730546.bKXeCS2adt@xps>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR05MB167818DEDFFA01B452A8294AACB70@VI1PR05MB1678.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20180408123240.110698-1-xuemingl@mellanox.com>
 <1859185.d5eMTAXH7r@xps>
 <VI1PR05MB167818DEDFFA01B452A8294AACB70@VI1PR05MB1678.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: introduce generic IP/UDP
	tunnel checksum and TSO
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:10:48 -0000

17/04/2018 09:53, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 08/04/2018 14:32, Xueming Li:
> > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > @@ -210,6 +210,8 @@ extern "C" {
> > >  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_GENEVE  (0x4ULL << 45)  /**< TX packet with
> > > MPLS-in-UDP RFC 7510 header. */  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MPLSINUDP
> > > (0x5ULL << 45)
> > > +#define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_IP (0xDULL << 45) /**< Tx IP tunneled packet.
> > > +*/ #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_UDP (0xEULL << 45) /**< Tx UDP tunneled
> > > +packet. */
> > 
> > I think you need to explain in details, in the comments, what we can expect when using these flags.
> > Please write the doxygen comment on the lines before the flag.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> > 
> > Any reason for using 0xD and 0xE values?
> > Because they are more generic than the first ones?
> 
> Yes, do you think it better to continue with previous ones?

No strong opinion.
Olivier?