Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

08/10/2018 10:24, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > >> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >>> However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
> > >>
> > >> Do we need to block this patch due to the exiting PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD
> > >> definition?
> > >>
> > >> I already added the author of the PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag and ethdev and mbuf
> > >> maintainers in this list. So what else I need make forward progress
> > >> on this patch?
> > >>
> > >> I think, the definition of PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD based on HW capability. It
> > >> is safe to assume that ALL HW can support CKSUM BAD if the feature is
> > >> available and hence it is more portable.
> > >
> > > Yes, as I remember PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD is based on DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM.
> > 
> > Switching to two bit won't reduce the portability, HW supports only reporting
> > CKSUM_BAD can set BAD || UNKNOWN.
> 
> UNKNOWN is not a bit. It is represented as 0. It spec has 2 bit, then
> driver need to report GOOD as well.
> 
> Same applies for PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM as well.
> 
> > 
> > And I think patch is not blocked by PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, it can be changed
> > separately, for this patch question is can we represent PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_* with
> > two bits, to have BAD/GOOD/UNKNOWN?

Yes, exact.

PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD must be left aside.
We should just avoid taking it as a reference.
And we can reconsider its definition later.