RE: [PATCH v2 5/6] net: add smaller IPv4 cksum function for simple cases

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2024 13.28
> 
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:32:30PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2024 12.28
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:21:00PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > Hello Bruce,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 6:51 PM Bruce Richardson
> > > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are multiple instances in the DPDK app folder where we
> set up
> > > an
> > > > > IP header and then compute the checksum field by direct
> addition of
> > > > > nine uint16_t values in the header (20 bytes less the cksum
> field).
> > > > > The existing rte_ip.h checksum function is more general than
> > > necessary
> > > > > here and requires that the checksum field is already set to
> zero -
> > > > > rather than having it skipped.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix the code duplication present in the apps by creating a new
> > > > > rte_ipv4_cksum_simple function - taking the code from the
> existing
> > > > > testpmd icmpecho.c file - and using that in app/test, testpmd
> and
> > > > > testeventdev.
> > > > >
> > > > > Within that new function, we can adjust slightly how the
> > > typecasting to
> > > > > uint16_t is done, and thereby ensure that the app can all be
> > > compiled
> > > > > without -Wno-address-of-packed-member compiler flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > > > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > >
> > > > This added function triggers a build error with OVS because of -
> > > Wcast-align:
> > > > https://github.com/david-
> > > marchand/ovs/actions/runs/11401635820/job/32273090691#step:12:514
> > > >
> > > > libtool: compile: env REAL_CC=gcc "CHECK=sparse -Wsparse-error -I
> > > > ./include/sparse -I ./include -m64 -I /usr/local/include -I
> > > > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu " cgcc -target=x86_64
> > > > -target=host_os_specs -D__MMX__=1 -D__MMX_WITH_SSE__=1
> > > > -D__SSE2_MATH__=1 -D__SSE_MATH__=1 -D__SSE__=1 -D__SSE2__=1
> > > > -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I ./include -I ./include -I ./lib -I ./lib
> > > > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wall -Wextra -Wno-sign-compare -Wpointer-
> arith
> > > > -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wswitch-enum -Wunused-parameter
> > > > -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align -Wstrict-prototypes
> > > > -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes
> > > > -Wmissing-field-initializers -fno-strict-aliasing -Wswitch-bool
> > > > -Wlogical-not-parentheses -Wsizeof-array-argument -Wbool-compare
> > > > -Wshift-negative-value -Wduplicated-cond -Wshadow
> > > > -Wmultistatement-macros -Wcast-align=strict -mssse3
> > > > -I/home/runner/work/ovs/ovs/dpdk-dir/include -include
> rte_config.h
> > > > -mrtm -Werror -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -g -O2 -MT lib/ofp-
> protocol.lo
> > > > -MD -MP -MF lib/.deps/ofp-protocol.Tpo -c lib/ofp-protocol.c -o
> > > > lib/ofp-protocol.o
> > > > In file included from /home/runner/work/ovs/ovs/dpdk-
> > > dir/include/rte_ip.h:9,
> > > > from /home/runner/work/ovs/ovs/dpdk-dir/include/rte_flow.h:25,
> > > > from lib/netdev-dpdk.h:30,
> > > > from lib/dp-packet.h:30,
> > > > from lib/ofp-print.c:34:
> > > > /home/runner/work/ovs/ovs/dpdk-dir/include/rte_ip4.h: In function
> > > > ‘rte_ipv4_cksum_simple’:
> > > > /home/runner/work/ovs/ovs/dpdk-dir/include/rte_ip4.h:191:17:
> error:
> > > > cast increases required alignment of target type [-Werror=cast-
> align]
> > > > 191 | v16_h = (const unaligned_uint16_t *)&ipv4_hdr->version_ihl;
> > > > | ^
> > > Ok, I'll see if I can rework it to avoid issues.
> >
> > Would be easier if IP(v4/v6) headers were 2-byte aligned, like the
> Ethernet header.
> > Just saying. ;-)
> >
> I agree. Would adding that alignment constraint cause us any issues,
> does
> anyone know?

No issues according to the CI:
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20241011160653.88028-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com/

The single failure is not related to the patch.