From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE3EA052A; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:41:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059371DDED; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:41:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB261DCBF for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id w3so5956067wmi.4 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:41:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=NB4FRgOLctz8npLh455wO5AIWNRzNpml0G9Bn6xXW9I=; b=Ylja3xo5HkQLKOTN0Q8yfuBSxGoLNEi2XJaJg0zJCHPq4azjS21adSpBIBDcLej179 N0jyHafFw3QVSr5JpEf0tItUR73UTvk2LNcYA+6cegQxWPmUbaY9oqXWDr+J8Syatqjx ars8+YrIxZ0sli+rPpcWggc7qz7uV6QWkmhy4m64oMfaPsFnbQEjegKFok0x1F8bLkeE Xnxqwgy7O05Zmm8VyCy0IbqTVCFpU5d44VSFEt+Mc//gUNkwjxr4O4INx/utZm6Smi8P 1NKz9BEZL8MByDItieTr4CeKMZiodUjF/4sptHno4PsI2oFvKo5h9ZjOJBxwEwlNu2fb q4SQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NB4FRgOLctz8npLh455wO5AIWNRzNpml0G9Bn6xXW9I=; b=f9Nvb8K07/juSfUUcn3AnZRR9LgnI/IGjQjAH5tZvTgEFQOT+IR0MIR6To6n4QJZ6p X663TUfv2UPsXzIqf5Zb0QKk6UCk+EjcHpANJmpngnXdS1o4TNR6xeirYMHRsG7eIoDZ oO6m9zp2NIl0yu6tFTd2ldfGi/rY61BHWpMEAdDsiNJdqA5G/j2o8L8A4wfRwTycrzdV yj7ZZiA181gKAHN3KmH+LanfxLankNbpaU9jLn6rA+itL+WavULZrG3Dl1rIetdZ5nb0 rTqIaBJQ7bZhjTEwiZN0URqkwE4rngcwK4ZXA6c+dg6N/pErJLCay+M/BZ2lO/0GlIeq mk1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335XvZOHafOOGoQwtKCnGFGI/uRRLByLgoroAMIWCLbnvtFvS/T bdEV9BjXJ4oh1gIiHx3VDYisEQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXA7GF3LUCwIHD606ximMu8KuieetKLHycJLxXhlHv40SOOqks0S1mkAHAmKfpBvBpSok27g== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e4d4:: with SMTP id b203mr5589848wmh.49.1594388463672; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a600345636f7e65ed1a0.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:5:a600:3456:36f7:e65e:d1a0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 51sm11106187wrc.44.2020.07.10.06.41.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:41:02 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= Cc: Hongzhi Guo , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, thomas@monjalon.net, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, nicolas.chautru@intel.com, zhoujingbin@huawei.com, chenchanghu@huawei.com, jerry.lilijun@huawei.com, haifeng.lin@huawei.com Message-ID: <20200710134102.GC5869@platinum> References: <20200710065551.59352-1-guohongzhi1@huawei.com> <20200710124109.GY5869@platinum> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61118@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20200710131604.GB5869@platinum> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61119@smartserver.smartshare.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61119@smartserver.smartshare.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: fix unneeded replacement of 0 by ffff for TCP checksum X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:29:36PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 3:16 PM > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 2:41 PM > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:55:51PM +0800, Hongzhi Guo wrote: > > > > > Per RFC768: > > > > > If the computed checksum is zero, it is transmitted as all ones. > > > > > An all zero transmitted checksum value means that the transmitter > > > > > generated no checksum. > > > > > > > > > > RFC793 for TCP has no such special treatment for the checksum of > > > > zero. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 6006818cfb26 ("net: new checksum functions") > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hongzhi Guo > > > > > --- > > > > > v2: > > > > > * Fixed commit tile > > > > > * Fixed the API comment > > > > > --- > > > > > --- > > > > > lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h | 18 +++++++++++++++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h b/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h > > > > > index 292f63fd7..d03c77120 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h > > > > > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ rte_ipv4_phdr_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr > > > > *ipv4_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags) > > > > > * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header. > > > > > * @return > > > > > * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet > > > > > - * or 0 on error > > > > > + * or 0 if the IP length is invalid in the header. > > > > > */ > > > > > static inline uint16_t > > > > > rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, const > > > > void *l4_hdr) > > > > > > 0 is a valid return value, so I suggest omitting it from the return > > value description: > > > > > > * @return > > > - * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet > > > - * or 0 on error > > > + * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet. > > > > > > The comparison "if (l3_len < sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr))" is only > > there to protect against invalid input; it prevents l4_len from > > becoming negative. > > > > I don't get why "0 if the IP length is invalid in the header" should > > be removed from the comment: 0 is both a valid return value and > > the value returned on invalid packet. > > To avoid confusion. We do not want people to add error handling for a return value of 0. > > 0 is not a special value or an error, so it does not deserve explicit mentioning. > > If we want to mention the return value for garbage input, we should not use the wording "or 0", because this suggests that 0 is not a normal return value. Ok, got it. So maybe this? The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet. If the IP length is invalid in the header, it returns 0. > > > > > > For the same reason, unlikely() should be added to this comparison. > > > > Maybe yes, but that's another story I think. > > Agree. I was just mentioning it so it can be done when modifying the function anyway. > > > > > > Otherwise, > > > > > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup > > > >