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 8A4C3A0471 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:21:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999C62BF4; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:21:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DC423D for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:21:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2704E5; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 07:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 07:21:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=WNOE9RaLdR8NiSE3Lfn6G4EAztw9L1lwDlIt0TS0J10=; b=gDSsTCeK6Mh7 7cnfBj2A+8KufnXFrSa0Ps9VVnl1QfQqy7G2ccSppYf+Kcig21QokwEvnTl/0xKb pyL3x/VC+9FUcBffmjthu0xnP25pmMsOBC5HnL04EuD0lpIen3x3B6up/nMyyS+Z SxpVe2STqQdfzocoQ0SaOJ03YCejQJo= 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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=WNOE9RaLdR8NiSE3Lfn6G4EAztw9L1lwDlIt0TS0J 10=; b=myTPDXlmorJqWzohKQHq5YzIMP+ER+EcvVc5tqEs5rYRCgHphrp8GePF/ AuLTKryGgCjG4XVZI9zyowaRBOYoXVncVsJNfujzOjcX+JBnppIXD5hTqnzHusoN KlhDHy5HX0gIJcOMvQl3TMkHZ24A+t4IL+iFVMEgWcZ9+Oat4x6GVbCmdyX/6Rln zaZ3jN3s5ReGmXEeQySbPaQAfa4wNBTUdXohTQn9piialyXKuocsoGevyKx+Zv76 Fdw0aVhVp6WDDZdiIekU2UurJOe/KH0rbjTWxcxqDGWa6ZLJXlKofNPnU6MCQUf5 dFRKpn/3Xdi8EIZUZweHO/TAdARhg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddriedtgdegudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucffoh hmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfr rghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenuc evlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 091F88005B; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 07:21:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Sunil Kumar Kori Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Konstantin Ananyev , jerinj@marvell.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:21:45 +0200 Message-ID: <26077215.QO4oM8pdKP@xps> In-Reply-To: <1563258209-2114-1-git-send-email-skori@marvell.com> References: <1563258209-2114-1-git-send-email-skori@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] lib/librte_ip_frag: Remove PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM offload flags 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" 16/07/2019 08:23, Sunil Kumar Kori: > Currently PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM is being set into mbuf->ol_flags during > fragmentation operation implicitly by the library. Because of this, > application is forced to use checksum offload whether it is supported > by platform or not. > > Also documentation does not provide any expected value of ol_flags in > returned fragmented mbufs so application will never come to know that which > offloads are enabled. So transmission may be failed for the platforms which > does not support checksum offload. > > So removing mentioned flag from the library. > > Mentioned changeset is part of http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/53475/ > Changes for reassembly operation is already accepcted. This patch set > implements the similar change for fragmentation operation. > > Signed-off-by: Sunil Kumar Kori Sunil, I would really appreciate you take care of the formatting. The previous patch had a changed title to comply some coding style: e29fc4437 ip_frag: remove IP checkum offload flag It requires also this line: Fixes: e29fc44370c2 ("ip_frag: remove IP checkum offload flag") When sending a new version, you are supposed to: - add a changelog - use --in-reply-to Applied