From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com
 [209.85.212.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CC28032
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  4 Dec 2014 14:47:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so27943871wiv.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:47:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=xoDBWT9ZHYxTzXBi0HNmJh4LIEytvS9oa6LaAEfvKDE=;
 b=feHCvyU381w3hn60BbNbNhERAaPxHjmyahyWYPLEBOKHExtpQas6PE2gxDO1xqhh34
 n/oiOD7/qSNTjgaCNon9rSpaya0UxYxz2Lk+zFWoP3t7hW/2lbRVFxcs4ldJXU/i40qN
 DezPRfBv9SrNvvLSfEBf+0hIixGj247VtzdyR2/+1ONIInor5EH/b+FJXUUTclPT7PlK
 yhcFeo72b2dd2VB8mWuZCP5u1/JqNf7miiAYpxk6c/C6c4nq39Edot99cFT7kzCIr4AH
 R8TJ7LVEJUafJxBl4ffuo9b2uX4QJ/MSTarNn5Kcz/eR5FTNwklhORY3ijqYSvh6XcpC
 30JA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWklHKBHbhmlTxyJMlAihlJo5u1lR3/ALTY1vPJrsdy/AfUNuNMA4MQsmIEEPBE7pbzPgC
X-Received: by 10.180.228.101 with SMTP id sh5mr21233972wic.62.1417700860046; 
 Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.16.0.195] (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net.
 [82.239.227.177])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm41430451wix.5.2014.12.04.05.47.39
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <548065FA.6040105@6wind.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:47:38 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, 
 "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
 "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1417532767-1309-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <1417532767-1309-3-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <547EF6E9.5040000@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC46D@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <547F211B.3040905@6wind.com>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A7CE4A7@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC6D5@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC6D5@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
 repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:47:41 -0000

Hi,

On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
>>>
>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 2/
>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
>> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
>> checksum offload is needed or not.
>
> Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  and we are going to remove it.
>
>> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
>
> No one even planned it.
>
>> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
>> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
>>
>> So here I got the option 3:
>> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>
> Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?

I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more
coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names.

Regards,
Olivier