From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com (mail-pf0-f169.google.com
 [209.85.192.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C632A66
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:28:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pf0-f169.google.com with SMTP id f144so65263881pfa.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=TwDPuD3RGifvQiIjMwbW2LUlojuFW/RAuH4xid8Dkr0=;
 b=N/MIt30yIXhQev0OtfFI1Lu6ImTvdGzqDmcARAN4FffJi+RgQ9VgClKHO5Et16VoTa
 VQk8KqpoaEzQMucdkJBcPnMAgkfYTRBcyDb2L81xUDZlHXx1JeT1x4Chn8GxPVT19hMY
 zyNwOPQ+ry9F9nwigoh5ewNoL67gieEqrS0TI2mDjvkJ8+5V+3FenRUsKUjJRk651onj
 epcbsEBrZy5AH7k0g15ca4fChly6fQlY6BDoPynB7fQMeI3MD3i1gGgSvGn6wUTMK6Sm
 hKF/+UpYDNW0YslqgPeKOlCVZ6xYgUCDTMMMwYPj2jJXL6BxuxDZ2JVdUZV9GrQgms54
 HTBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=TwDPuD3RGifvQiIjMwbW2LUlojuFW/RAuH4xid8Dkr0=;
 b=iygDrDhKBPIkMhTjfn7moMs2ORwmDOGk4jb3+OEemZKsXfqGzK9V8sylDYN5z6FBQ1
 sLMWosNb7VU7BMAVCraEihNlZJenRg+2EOHdKYlg4C3p3D/X3xakn9qp3pFIp3aRVLY4
 l5wPnmiCKIscqdRGtVuD2bJZpKEckSIj5TVZzKBHpHobKHEFw2HHHN+xOWhZ/KjPBAOw
 uzDBUv74bktialhVZPKOtMUTE9YfGUkYezUWCNCJblRX8j4/Uozl98tW1hfiKGp9Lde2
 WXsRwa/iDFLdgzF/k+Wjri1ld5H6MrWklCSAX9mJWiPMV3JTbIwqwz4+fCjASAz5lnh7
 jqSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJMy7VRvmCNCYUVXvkirm3IEVSCMh3SI1l0g8e7jyATfVmRvSbrwIRqGVL622DeRQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.91.7 with SMTP id p7mr2817973pfb.8.1464726485867;
 Tue, 31 May 2016 13:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-72-186.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net.
 [50.53.72.186])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 22sm42370464pfw.92.2016.05.31.13.28.05
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 31 May 2016 13:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:28:20 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
 <dev@dpdk.org>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, Adrien Mazarguil
 <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>, "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20160531132820.4fadfc2e@xeon-e3>
In-Reply-To: <574DE1FF.6060402@6wind.com>
References: <574C5B9D.4080006@6wind.com>
 <20160531080916.GI5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <574DE1FF.6060402@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 20:28:06 -0000

On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:11:59 +0200
Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 05/31/2016 10:09 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >>  PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE: the L4 checksum is not correct in the packet
> >>  data, but the integrity of the L4 header is verified.
> >>   -> the application can process the packet but must not verify the
> >>      checksum by sw. It has to take care to recalculate the cksum
> >>      if the packet is transmitted (either by sw or using tx offload)
> > 
> > I like the explanation you made at [1] better :)
> > 
> > So in general, I think this proposal is good to have.
> 
> Thanks everyone for your feedback.
> 
> I'll try to send a first patch proposition soon.
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier

I think it is time to ditch the old definitions of Rx checksum and instead
use something more compatiable with virtio (and Linux). I.e have three values
  1) checksum is know good for packet contents
  2) checksum value one's complement for packet contents
  3) checksum is undetermined
The original definition seems to be Intel HW centric and applies to a limited
range of devices making it unusable by general application.

Break the ABI, and ditch the old values (ok mark PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD as __deprecated
and remove all usage).