From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27EF3989 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:26:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t79so225739907wmt.0 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1FxT+QDKAf3Wz8B07Xx7J+KjWqLAqzuJ5zlhBLGhYNg=; b=z1eDZUA+ll3ozDbcVEKzo+COcZ3cpsHTbH9Jz3zlWHpvuQDvLrqAjo2DxohKbs9l7h 3OWMnpLHW267EZ26C9yTFHT+rIBd9IuxL7DT3F/UQYle9dZMYvxEg2GBRgJJnliRRer4 g/UcrH0pig51wOYvQh9MHlCOsKtXY0X36nccpV3xcI0RD6Dlz87DFlgAulat+mBXykyf MDNDZANwKCeELT0aAqUtQcXfc6/elEYnw+la+hoE/GcVNliNtAtSZXvHTRxDvADhZlTX YBmllo2KfcN7H0cC01DqlbEo1pQl+D3og9bF2kT8UX9kgWW94rDOCWoh82S7y95Ig2un RKLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1FxT+QDKAf3Wz8B07Xx7J+KjWqLAqzuJ5zlhBLGhYNg=; b=N7hIKMa8fvLOCn9OEAxkEeMt7oIxdC5WQAb0lLymEx/ooOVAw9pyjEzwtKL5YnnquN 9ZY/NOpfhT8vdL2sg9MDZVWk9l+YJtERphcuQ0tQO8L7BXZGBbPXJV2MRE44TzYZG8ol G9b0C8/i5wvnyEt6XUE3bpT77qxLWiZv7TsjDYk1pKbXf/uqBf/tozU4PqvUPSdAWaaP YaaOkY/bpfY6KxbovZ3qfxjNpaTf1vWORNl1oKtUPmz/zYk48H9vyRCGgaD8IK1+fj/Q uyxQGWA5qM0MbZPefcW1A746tUuF7/yiNyDeH/uyOFWXpTSTA0LpV+ZQlICkM+YA1ORN MoiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03sjXtJi5QAAWBWuzN/NR2RQTNj6GiPn88/j6wNNWN8Ym0gjKQyOrMD1VmD6jjB0YPB X-Received: by 10.28.0.13 with SMTP id 13mr30937758wma.126.1480530398387; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ef10sm54634681wjd.22.2016.11.30.10.26.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:37 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Harish Patil , dev@dpdk.org, Rahul Lakkireddy , Stephen Hurd , Jan Medala , Jakub Palider , John Daley , Adrien Mazarguil , Alejandro Lucero , Rasesh Mody , "Jacob, Jerin" , Yuanhan Liu , Yong Wang , "Kulasek, TomaszX" , olivier.matz@6wind.com Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:26:36 +0100 Message-ID: <3517413.XL3bTbAyaC@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0E2444@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1477486575-25148-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0E2444@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:26:38 -0000 2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > >Please, we need a comment for each driver saying > > >"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO" > > >or > > >"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this = mode" > > > > >=20 > > qede PMD doesn=E2=80=99t currently support TSO yet, it only support= s Tx TCP/UDP/IP > > csum offloads. > > So Tx preparation isn=E2=80=99t applicable. So as of now - > > "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO" >=20 > Thanks for the answer. > Though please note that it not only for TSO. Oh yes, sorry, my wording was incorrect. We need to know if any checksum preparation is needed prior offloading its final computation to the hardware or driver. So the question applies to TSO and simple checksum offload. We are still waiting answers for =09bnxt, cxgbe, ena, nfp, thunderx, virtio and vmxnet3. > This is for any TX offload for which the upper layer SW would have > to modify the contents of the packet. > Though as I can see for qede neither PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM or PKT_TX_TCP_CK= SUM > exhibits any extra requirements for the user. > Is that correct?