From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AC137A0 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:02:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE9921736; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:02:38 -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=WOGVK4PYSsH/M1mraIdRkJFA/O 58o+LxrKinAX0Euto=; b=F+NUu3H1Fmr0cq8WDrlyS+CEmYSdMEPberBWI2T2LQ dE875SZMVT9s3IqSj8/ikxIqL53Noe5F1hwvjLBlD+3TT5/9VMswkQYOQEFASKbh SagThUV5oxDuC1KXi5514242JKbUBAEicIbnGYvdUcgsznQNQ5MwKSKY0EGJiGWm E= 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=WOGVK4 PYSsH/M1mraIdRkJFA/O58o+LxrKinAX0Euto=; b=AvNj1de10zbJjB8V/XOK8b FWQItDJf1b+YP2gTnyLDsEAY3OkSq1ko5RYACU8guGDS6POyp4KUZFvNaUcSGlWB 8Slc2E3aD+ovqjBv3kirk+bYQVzdvxqYQR3L9UKYj/gfPpHNot27HGKhPQUWMWOn jGb1SQQb8t0O64asmDunfbzgGQxklic2zX9YuTDJlQhXTWawu5JJ0q2Ui6876wR9 QnzykKZqLxlsWdvuB2lgstWtlapLm8qVhxrwqYcFw3CzsTetmS29GecFnUocBeaw uTAQlmzSTO7uaRC+6djsS5UmzjoDCBcN3dj3tk9g1rpQ2DWcWDKka0zzb4dBLYqw == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C3134E5088; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Xueming Li , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Wu, Jingjing" , Yongseok Koh , Olivier MATZ , Shahaf Shuler , "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:02:35 +0200 Message-ID: <25401990.h546MBpoIl@xps> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258AE9179C8@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20180408123240.110698-1-xuemingl@mellanox.com> <2683955.QbV0EBoMcY@xps> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258AE9179C8@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:02:40 -0000 18/04/2018 18:45, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 18/04/2018 15:58, Xueming Li: > > > The new flag PKT_TX_TUNNEL_IP is redundant with PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM. > > > The old flag PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM can be deprecated and removed in > > > later release. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xueming Li > > > > Except a small comment below, it looks OK. > > > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon > > > > Please send a deprecation notice for PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM. > > I probably missed something, but why PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM > is supposed to be deprecated? Because PKT_TX_TUNNEL_* flags sepersede it. I think we need to discuss it. We use the offload flags PKT_TX_TUNNEL_* when we request some offloads in the outer and the inner headers at the same time. When setting a tunnel flag PKT_TX_TUNNEL_*, it can be expected that the outer checksums will be offloaded, otherwise it is almost impossible to request an offload in the inner header. In the case of an UDP tunnel, any change in the inner packet will require an UDP checksum update. In the case of an IP tunnel, a change of the inner packet size (like TSO) will require an IP checksum update. If we really require PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM to be set in addition to PKT_TX_TUNNEL_* flags, then we should add more PKT_TX_OUTER_*_CKSUM, like PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM which is missing. Opinions?