From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3243C558C for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:50:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2016 02:50:24 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,724,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="197826200" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.29]) ([10.237.220.29]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2016 02:50:21 -0800 To: Thomas Monjalon , "Ananyev, Konstantin" References: <1477486575-25148-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0E2444@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <3517413.XL3bTbAyaC@xps13> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jan Medala , Jakub Palider , Alejandro Lucero , Yuanhan Liu , Yong Wang , "Kulasek, TomaszX" , Netanel Belgazal , Evgeny Schemeilin From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <8d1ffaf2-0dd3-c3d7-c6ed-78566c12cf7f@intel.com> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:50:21 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3517413.XL3bTbAyaC@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:50:25 -0000 On 11/30/2016 6:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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" >>>> >>> >>> qede PMD doesn’t currently support TSO yet, it only supports Tx TCP/UDP/IP >>> csum offloads. >>> So Tx preparation isn’t applicable. So as of now - >>> "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO" >> >> 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 > bnxt, cxgbe, ena, nfp, thunderx, virtio and vmxnet3. > Remaining ones: ena nfp virtio vmxnet3