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 3A803A052A for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 13:54:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B98C2402AE; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 13:54:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCC42402AE for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 13:54:08 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1612270447; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NKYA+9C/y9b6fcZnX1j18MMq4ENJdySsEgmZ3snmHjY=; b=Sn3vMh8CtrpFpTCTTXtikQFjUfikCggZBWZ1jjH3T3/qflT+1qIE786yoggcinDEmIhcoW j+eTT3D44ObjYWfsi2weoWG5QpvXCOpEzstl6djrVuTch7PYCgL95Xp2/zmstTF0icbliy mXYEArI2h5/VHKGSa/l1XClY+XDFVj4= Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-538-AtKAyj--NuCYsX7Bm1l2GA-1; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 07:54:05 -0500 X-MC-Unique: AtKAyj--NuCYsX7Bm1l2GA-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id q193so4479634vkb.7 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 04:54:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NKYA+9C/y9b6fcZnX1j18MMq4ENJdySsEgmZ3snmHjY=; b=Gi0anGOy0cmcMZ5aRbHSzHJkhaQK//BUpanCZHf9qesxeXw2qOzDuzg34PqfdFgka0 V3RSnF1SoDQ0BB4/Chf6GLyWKLBDrTn4sZK4z0klNInTtzwLbaoYGQhifdibE6mY4p3B zaHpuPoWS3HbQOdNwSD4oXonOTp5LYWHYbeqFAq7tcJxXMNoVczDRkMo9oH/hF+3XFDJ jZZM1+REZbsds/43R7V3D9HgaEC6guBwa+eTIAKOYSoLfZp3Rbm45NPAE0tKH2wIKOIT yFxHUKuHiaAsP5SLk+2CGjpg9fZSfvyxMJRL8BXBqGurfhEzT/dOqjW9tYlQtO641KCl hDlw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531g2V38ph45YfZ9fDHBNTfPqVcfokW2Ls3qzlSfDZCmDHCNVqBf 8Fj1Way5V85oD0ypisIxMBHreFMV8Rx8GBihBCCKmwxhnfHXXKLGwGoZP7hUqmg1b37XtKhsVz2 GzcJHcSA/BW/fswH6nHXWLvk= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2628:: with SMTP id 37mr11614462uag.87.1612270445153; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 04:54:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtfJuunhhIEuil9jdu73hCbnOzus3ufj+n5KfTn3Ejg4HyQu152jC1kAKADQfdm2LXa856PAaPeV4MUUXkgXE= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2628:: with SMTP id 37mr11614450uag.87.1612270444830; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 04:54:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210202070652.145861-1-haiyue.wang@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 13:53:53 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Wang, Haiyue" Cc: dev , "pvalerio@redhat.com" , Aaron Conole , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Rong, Leyi" , "Tu, Lijuan" , dpdk stable , "Guo, Jia" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v1] net/ixgbe: adjust error for UDP with zero checksum X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:42 PM Wang, Haiyue wrote: > > If the driver/hw can't report a valid checksum hint, it should > > announce it does not know if the checksum is valid (neither bad, nor > > good). > > > > So the workaround for udp packets (on this hw model) would be to > > report PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN. > > The sw application will then have to recompute the checksum itself if needed. > > > > Make sense, but not sure the vector path can handle this more easily. Will try. Refining this a bit. It looks like hw correctly reports "good" checksums, so maybe instead report PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN only for reports of "bad" checksums from the hw? -- David Marchand