Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: add support for UDP segmentation case

["Nicolau, Radu" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>]

Hi Olivier, thanks for the feedback. I marked it as deferred for this 
release.

On 10/14/2021 4:46 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Radu,
>
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>> [PATCH] net: add support for UDP segmentation case
> What about this title instead?
>
> net: exclude IP len from phdr cksum if offloading UDP frag
>
>> Add support to the ipv4/ipv6 pseudo-header function when TSO is enabled
>> in the UDP case, eg  PKT_TX_UDP_SEG is set in the mbuf ol_flags
> I think it would be clearer to say "UDP fragmentation" instead of
> "TSO is enabled in the UDP case".
>
>> Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/net/rte_ip.h | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/net/rte_ip.h b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
>> index 05948b69b7..c916ec1b09 100644
>> --- a/lib/net/rte_ip.h
>> +++ b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
>> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ rte_ipv4_phdr_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags)
>>   	psd_hdr.dst_addr = ipv4_hdr->dst_addr;
>>   	psd_hdr.zero = 0;
>>   	psd_hdr.proto = ipv4_hdr->next_proto_id;
>> -	if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) {
>> +	if (ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG)) {
>>   		psd_hdr.len = 0;
>>   	} else {
>>   		l3_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ipv4_hdr->total_length);
> Can you also update the API comment?
>
>> @@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ rte_ipv6_phdr_cksum(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags)
>>   	} psd_hdr;
>>   
>>   	psd_hdr.proto = (uint32_t)(ipv6_hdr->proto << 24);
>> -	if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) {
>> +	if (ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG)) {
>>   		psd_hdr.len = 0;
>>   	} else {
>>   		psd_hdr.len = ipv6_hdr->payload_len;
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>
> No objection for this patch, but I think we should consider removing
> this ol_flags parameter from the pseudo header checksum calculation
> functions in the future, because it is a bit confusing.
>
> Historically, this was done in commit 4199fdea60c3 ("mbuf: generic
> support for TCP segmentation offload") because we were expecting that
> this pseudo-header checksum (required by Intel hw when doing checksum or
> TSO) will be done in the same way for many drivers (i.e. without the IP
> length for TSO). I don't know if it is the case.
>
> Or maybe a 'use_0_length' parameter would make more sense than
> 'ol_flags'.
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier