From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519F0430C3; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 19:29:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C857A40DF8; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 19:29:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D1240DF5 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 19:29:26 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1692638965; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VvJ0xa9/daWAaj8indYEooKFwC9jCNq95C4ZtFvqdiY=; b=ZhcZyF8N4ELRjJiSeN8AFqoEmEmPgQSQ98A/xj3h4mwnXgGS5swXKZwQrYe2eIJxUXnU0n DeVYbvNZSWsvMpCwV5TW4cTiYBe5+GhUpAyAiXn1mwFTiqT0op8fqeeHzS0LkkzSwx+AGI AkGX250D5L2WioecgGgknYbSYLNaQh8= Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-673-_-FdKs9IOgSFSaHMup-0cw-1; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:29:24 -0400 X-MC-Unique: _-FdKs9IOgSFSaHMup-0cw-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-50081b0dba6so1235498e87.0 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692638963; x=1693243763; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VvJ0xa9/daWAaj8indYEooKFwC9jCNq95C4ZtFvqdiY=; b=d30rQqh4w1sq/XabifGAV3KgGBCa5FgrQojRePqQiRGMX3KTLufVbnBxP5l6LIedY8 hENQEoihlH1gEr8U0mp+c6zj42lYbgBVNkYmL0294nPrLDfwZd9ePZ1zhxEfGOPNXSi1 h9JfcQZD9ZlfaQY/17UOQZi6rFr9DwdfpJpFyuyaWEO74RmpTFOn5txAsLORmhaZ/ivP TkzrIYbgsgDTI3dzKrpaGxNUkn7ftlqGLWoMKNlSFrGvJ52lWOr+hTRnFbO1Ji6RwU6+ QV/g/BvDoVM9ij5x+VsvMj71jyBhda0dorrYadVSAvvfkOEc7urvuZjmSEJu9zwn3hlL LNaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxvx535wA6CXVygAJabwK/R1mVXJwKfOKrA4dUpOFAKlnH9T/BD df4v1NnEbIDiOu4T0cExSPNLvu1bw49j2782rPo5qXCB56qSHirqP/w8oceOQWJLkw7JK8sp5F+ xyuhcy7ReB92jGyeUJU4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3189:b0:4f7:6453:f3f1 with SMTP id i9-20020a056512318900b004f76453f3f1mr6442208lfe.15.1692638962848; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE4ZbHGWRMAZkb98wQIvvIHnV16uWXUGOahwuB6g0UHsDxBhmBZx1J3SBm4nfUCH/TLapKBT/DMt0fLXSPUT/I= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3189:b0:4f7:6453:f3f1 with SMTP id i9-20020a056512318900b004f76453f3f1mr6442195lfe.15.1692638962545; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230818090351.2402519-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 19:29:10 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading To: "Zhang, Qi Z" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "echaudro@redhat.com" , "mkp@redhat.com" , "stable@dpdk.org" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Xing, Beilei" , "Doherty, Declan" , "Sinha, Abhijit" , "Nicolau, Radu" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 1:54=E2=80=AFPM Zhang, Qi Z = wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading > > > > The only presence of RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 can't be used as an indicator t= hat > > a checksum offload has been requested by an application. > > According to current implementation, actually the only presence of RTE_MB= UF_F_TX_IPV4 will cause IIPT =3D 10b, this scenario corresponds to an 'IPv4= packet with no IP checksum offload,' according to datasheet. > So, I assume in this situation, the PMD continues to operate under the a= ssumption that the application has not requested checksum offloading. > > Could you share more insight what is the failure, maybe we can perform a= more comprehensive investigation? I think the missing piece is that OVS passes a l2_len =3D=3D l3_len =3D=3D = 0. In our tests, we could see that tx_errors get incremented for each failed packet to transmit. --=20 David Marchand