From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
To: "Xu, Rosen" <rosen.xu@intel.com>,
Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Cc: "Nicolau, Radu" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
"Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"matan@nvidia.com" <matan@nvidia.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>,
Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] RFC: ethdev: add reassembly offload
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:22:14 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <011f96fb-0f02-e681-abb4-46257200da35@oktetlabs.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB2901ED12C4FA1903F264B7F989D99@BYAPR11MB2901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On 9/13/21 9:56 AM, Xu, Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2021 18:30
>> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Xu, Rosen <rosen.xu@intel.com>;
>> Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>> Cc: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
>> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
>> matan@nvidia.com; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
>> thomas@monjalon.net; Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>;
>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru; Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>;
>> dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] RFC: ethdev: add reassembly offload
>>
>> Hi Ferruh, Rosen, Andrew,
>>
>> Please see inline.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anoob
>>
>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] RFC: ethdev: add reassembly offload
>>>
>>> External Email
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On 8/23/2021 11:02 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>> Reassembly is a costly operation if it is done in software, however,
>>>> if it is offloaded to HW, it can considerably save application cycles.
>>>> The operation becomes even more costlier if IP fragmants are
>>>> encrypted.
>>>>
>>>> To resolve above two issues, a new offload
>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_REASSEMBLY
>>>> is introduced in ethdev for devices which can attempt reassembly of
>>>> packets in hardware.
>>>> rte_eth_dev_info is added with the reassembly capabilities which a
>>>> device can support.
>>>> Now, if IP fragments are encrypted, reassembly can also be attempted
>>>> while doing inline IPsec processing.
>>>> This is controlled by a flag in rte_security_ipsec_sa_options to
>>>> enable reassembly of encrypted IP fragments in the inline path.
>>>>
>>>> The resulting reassembled packet would be a typical segmented mbuf
>>>> in case of success.
>>>>
>>>> And if reassembly of fragments is failed or is incomplete (if
>>>> fragments do not come before the reass_timeout), the mbuf is updated
>>>> with an ol_flag PKT_RX_REASSEMBLY_INCOMPLETE and mbuf is returned
>>> as
>>>> is. Now application may decide the fate of the packet to wait more
>>>> for fragments to come or drop.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 1 +
>>>> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>>> lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 3 ++-
>>>> lib/security/rte_security.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c index
>>>> 9d95cd11e1..1ab3a093cf 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ static const struct {
>>>> RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(VLAN_FILTER),
>>>> RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(VLAN_EXTEND),
>>>> RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(JUMBO_FRAME),
>>>> + RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(REASSEMBLY),
>>>> RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(SCATTER),
>>>> RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(TIMESTAMP),
>>>> RTE_RX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(SECURITY),
>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index
>>>> d2b27c351f..e89a4dc1eb 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>>> @@ -1360,6 +1360,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
>>>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER 0x00000200
>>>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_EXTEND 0x00000400
>>>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME 0x00000800
>>>> +#define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_REASSEMBLY 0x00001000
>>>
>>> previous '0x00001000' was 'DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP', it has been
>> long
>>> that offload has been removed, but not sure if it cause any problem to
>>> re- use it.
>>>
>>>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER 0x00002000
>>>> /**
>>>> * Timestamp is set by the driver in
>>> RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME
>>>> @@ -1477,6 +1478,20 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_portconf {
>>>> */
>>>> #define RTE_ETH_DEV_SWITCH_DOMAIN_ID_INVALID
>>> (UINT16_MAX)
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * Reassembly capabilities that a device can support.
>>>> + * The device which can support reassembly offload should set
>>>> + * DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_REASSEMBLY
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct rte_eth_reass_capa {
>>>> + /** Maximum time in ns that a fragment can wait for further
>>> fragments */
>>>> + uint64_t reass_timeout;
>>>> + /** Maximum number of fragments that device can reassemble */
>>>> + uint16_t max_frags;
>>>> + /** Reserved for future capabilities */
>>>> + uint16_t reserved[3];
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I wonder if there is any other hardware around supports reassembly
>>> offload, it would be good to get more feedback on the capabilities list.
>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> * Ethernet device associated switch information
>>>> */
>>>> @@ -1582,8 +1597,9 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_info {
>>>> * embedded managed interconnect/switch.
>>>> */
>>>> struct rte_eth_switch_info switch_info;
>>>> + /* Reassembly capabilities of a device for reassembly offload */
>>>> + struct rte_eth_reass_capa reass_capa;
>>>>
>>>> - uint64_t reserved_64s[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
>>>
>>> Reserved fields were added to be able to update the struct without
>>> breaking the ABI, so that a critical change doesn't have to wait until
>>> next ABI break release.
>>> Since this is ABI break release, we can keep the reserved field and
>>> add the new struct. Or this can be an opportunity to get rid of the reserved
>> field.
>>>
>>> Personally I have no objection to get rid of the reserved field, but
>>> better to agree on this explicitly.
>>>
>>>> void *reserved_ptrs[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
>>>> index
>>>> bb38d7f581..cea25c87f7 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
>>>> @@ -200,10 +200,11 @@ extern "C" {
>>>> #define PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 21)
>>>> #define PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD (1ULL << 22)
>>>> #define PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_INVALID ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL
>>> << 22))
>>>> +#define PKT_RX_REASSEMBLY_INCOMPLETE (1ULL << 23)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Similar comment with Andrew's, what is the expectation from
>>> application if this flag exists? Can we drop it to simplify the logic in the
>> application?
>>
>> [Anoob] There can be few cases where hardware/NIC attempts inline
>> reassembly but it fails to complete it
>>
>> 1. Number of fragments is larger than what is supported by the hardware 2.
>> Hardware reassembly resources are exhausted (due to limited reassembly
>> contexts etc) 3. Reassembly errors such as overlapping fragments 4. Wait
>> time exhausted (or reassembly timeout)
>>
>> In such cases, application would be required to retrieve the original
>> fragments so that it can attempt reassembly in software. The incomplete flag
>> is useful for 2 purposes basically, 1. Application would need to retrieve the
>> time the fragment has already spend in hardware reassembly so that
>> software reassembly attempt can compensate for it. Otherwise, reassembly
>> timeout across hardware + software will not be accurate
Could you clarify how application will find out the time spent
in HW.
>> 2. Retrieve original
>> fragments. With this proposal, an incomplete reassembly would result in a
>> chained mbuf but the segments need not be consecutive. To explain bit more,
>>
>> Suppose we have a packet that is fragmented into 3 fragments, and fragment
>> 3 & fragment 1 arrives in that order. Fragment 2 didn't arrive and hardware
>> ultimately pushes it. In that case, application would be receiving a
>> chained/segmented mbuf with fragment 1 & fragment 3 chained.
>>
>> Now, this chained mbuf can't be treated like a regular chained mbuf. Each
>> fragment would have its IP hdr and there are fragments missing in between.
>> The only thing application is expected to do is, retrieve fragments, push it to
>> s/w reassembly.
It sounds like it conflicts with SCATTER and BUFFER_SPLIT
offloads which allow to return chained mbuf's. Don't know
if it is good or bad, but anyway it must be documented.
>
> What you mentioned is error identification. But actually a negotiation about max frame size is needed before datagrams tx/rx.
It sounds like it is OK for informational purposes, but
right now I don't understand how it could be used by the
application. Application still has to support reassembly
in SW regardless of the information.
>>>
>>>> /* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */
>>>>
>>>> -#define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23)
>>>> +#define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 24)
>>>> #define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40)
>>>>
>>>> /* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */
>>>> diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h
>>>> b/lib/security/rte_security.h index 88d31de0a6..364eeb5cd4 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h
>>>> @@ -181,6 +181,16 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_sa_options {
>>>> * * 0: Disable per session security statistics collection for this SA.
>>>> */
>>>> uint32_t stats : 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + /** Enable reassembly on incoming packets.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * * 1: Enable driver to try reassembly of encrypted IP packets for
>>>> + * this SA, if supported by the driver. This feature will work
>>>> + * only if rx_offload DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_REASSEMBLY is set in
>>>> + * inline ethernet device.
>>>> + * * 0: Disable reassembly of packets (default).
>>>> + */
>>>> + uint32_t reass_en : 1;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> /** IPSec security association direction */
>>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-13 7:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 184+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-23 10:02 [dpdk-dev] " Akhil Goyal
2021-08-23 10:18 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-08-29 13:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2021-09-21 19:59 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-09-07 8:47 ` [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-09-08 10:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Anoob Joseph
2021-09-13 6:56 ` Xu, Rosen
2021-09-13 7:22 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2021-09-14 5:14 ` Anoob Joseph
2021-09-08 6:34 ` [dpdk-dev] " Xu, Rosen
2021-09-08 6:36 ` Xu, Rosen
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 0/8] ethdev: introduce IP " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 1/8] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-11 16:03 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-22 7:38 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-01-30 16:53 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 2/8] ethdev: add dev op for IP reassembly configuration Akhil Goyal
2022-01-11 16:09 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-11 18:54 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-12 10:22 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-12 10:32 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-12 10:48 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-12 11:06 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-13 13:31 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-13 14:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 3/8] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for incomplete IP reassembly Akhil Goyal
2022-01-11 17:04 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-11 18:44 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-12 10:30 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-12 10:59 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-13 22:29 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-13 13:18 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-13 14:36 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-01-13 15:04 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 4/8] security: add IPsec option for " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 5/8] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] app/test: add IP reassembly case with no frags Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] app/test: add IP reassembly cases with multiple fragments Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] app/test: add IP reassembly negative cases Akhil Goyal
2022-02-17 17:23 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-02-17 17:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-02-17 17:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] app/test: add IP reassembly case with no frags Akhil Goyal
2022-02-17 17:23 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] app/test: add IP reassembly cases with multiple fragments Akhil Goyal
2022-02-17 17:23 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] app/test: add IP reassembly negative cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 00/10] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 01/10] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 02/10] test/security: add inline inbound IPsec cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 03/10] test/security: add combined mode inline " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 04/10] test/security: add inline IPsec reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 05/10] test/security: add more inline IPsec functional cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 06/10] test/security: add ESN and anti-replay cases for inline Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 07/10] ethdev: add IPsec SA expiry event subtypes Akhil Goyal
2022-04-19 8:58 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-04-19 10:14 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-19 10:19 ` Anoob Joseph
2022-04-19 10:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-04-19 10:39 ` Anoob Joseph
2022-04-19 10:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-04-19 12:27 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-04-19 15:41 ` Ray Kinsella
2022-04-20 13:51 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-09-24 13:57 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] Add and test IPsec SA expiry events Akhil Goyal
2022-09-24 13:57 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] ethdev: add IPsec SA expiry event subtypes Akhil Goyal
2022-09-24 14:02 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-09-26 14:02 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-09-27 18:44 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-09-24 13:57 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] test/security: add inline IPsec SA soft expiry cases Akhil Goyal
2022-09-24 13:57 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] test/security: add inline IPsec SA hard " Akhil Goyal
2022-09-26 17:07 ` [PATCH v6 0/3] Add and test IPsec SA expiry events Akhil Goyal
2022-09-26 17:07 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] ethdev: add IPsec SA expiry event subtypes Akhil Goyal
2022-09-26 17:07 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] test/security: add inline IPsec SA soft expiry cases Akhil Goyal
2022-09-26 17:07 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] test/security: add inline IPsec SA hard " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 08/10] test/security: add inline IPsec SA soft " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 09/10] test/security: add inline IPsec SA hard " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-16 19:25 ` [PATCH v4 10/10] test/security: add inline IPsec IPv6 flow label cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-18 3:44 ` Anoob Joseph
2022-04-18 3:55 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-04-25 12:38 ` [PATCH v4 00/10] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Poczatek, Jakub
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:44 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] test/security: add inline inbound IPsec cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:44 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] test/security: add combined mode inline " Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:45 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] test/security: add inline IPsec reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:45 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] test/security: add more inline IPsec functional cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:46 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] test/security: add ESN and anti-replay cases for inline Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:46 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-28 5:25 ` Anoob Joseph
2022-04-27 15:10 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] test/security: add inline IPsec IPv6 flow label cases Akhil Goyal
2022-04-27 15:46 ` Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-04-27 15:42 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Zhang, Roy Fan
2022-05-13 7:31 ` [PATCH v6 " Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:31 ` [PATCH v6 1/7] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:31 ` [PATCH v6 2/7] test/security: add inline inbound IPsec cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:31 ` [PATCH v6 3/7] test/security: add combined mode inline " Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:31 ` [PATCH v6 4/7] test/security: add inline IPsec reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:31 ` [PATCH v6 5/7] test/security: add more inline IPsec functional cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:32 ` [PATCH v6 6/7] test/security: add ESN and anti-replay cases for inline Akhil Goyal
2022-05-13 7:32 ` [PATCH v6 7/7] test/security: add inline IPsec IPv6 flow label cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 0/7] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] app/test: add unit cases for inline IPsec offload Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 2/7] test/security: add inline inbound IPsec cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 3/7] test/security: add combined mode inline " Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 4/7] test/security: add inline IPsec reassembly cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 5/7] test/security: add more inline IPsec functional cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 6/7] test/security: add ESN and anti-replay cases for inline Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 7:22 ` [PATCH v7 7/7] test/security: add inline IPsec IPv6 flow label cases Akhil Goyal
2022-05-24 8:05 ` [PATCH v7 0/7] app/test: add inline IPsec and reassembly cases Anoob Joseph
2022-05-24 9:38 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 6/8] app/test: add IP reassembly case with no frags Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 7/8] app/test: add IP reassembly cases with multiple fragments Akhil Goyal
2022-01-03 15:08 ` [PATCH 8/8] app/test: add IP reassembly negative cases Akhil Goyal
2022-01-06 9:51 ` [PATCH 0/8] ethdev: introduce IP reassembly offload David Marchand
2022-01-06 9:54 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:45 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-01-20 17:11 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] ethdev: add dev op to set/get IP reassembly configuration Akhil Goyal
2022-01-22 8:17 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-01-30 16:30 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for incomplete IP reassembly Akhil Goyal
2022-01-20 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] security: add IPsec option for " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-30 17:59 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] ethdev: introduce IP reassembly offload Akhil Goyal
2022-01-30 17:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-01 14:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-02 10:57 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-02 14:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-01-30 17:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] ethdev: add dev op to set/get IP reassembly configuration Akhil Goyal
2022-01-30 17:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for incomplete IP reassembly Akhil Goyal
2022-02-01 14:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-02 9:13 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-01-30 17:59 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] security: add IPsec option for " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-01 14:12 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-02 9:15 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-02 14:04 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-01 14:10 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] ethdev: introduce IP reassembly offload Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-02 9:05 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-04 22:13 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-04 22:13 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-04 22:20 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-07 13:53 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-07 14:36 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-04 22:13 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for incomplete IP reassembly Akhil Goyal
2022-02-07 13:58 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-07 14:20 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-07 14:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-07 16:20 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-07 16:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-07 17:17 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-07 17:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-02-07 17:28 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-07 18:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-02-07 18:28 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-07 19:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-02-07 17:29 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-04 22:13 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] security: add IPsec option for " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 9:01 ` David Marchand
2022-02-08 9:18 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 9:27 ` David Marchand
2022-02-08 10:45 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 13:19 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 19:55 ` David Marchand
2022-02-08 20:01 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] ethdev: introduce IP reassembly offload Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for incomplete IP reassembly Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] security: add IPsec option for " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 22:20 ` [PATCH v6 0/3] ethdev: introduce IP reassembly offload Akhil Goyal
2022-02-08 22:20 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-10 8:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-10 10:08 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-02-10 10:20 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-10 10:30 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-08 22:20 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for incomplete IP reassembly Akhil Goyal
2022-02-10 8:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-08 22:20 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] security: add IPsec option for " Akhil Goyal
2022-02-10 8:54 ` [PATCH v6 0/3] ethdev: introduce IP reassembly offload Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=011f96fb-0f02-e681-abb4-46257200da35@oktetlabs.ru \
--to=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=adwivedi@marvell.com \
--cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=matan@nvidia.com \
--cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
--cc=rosen.xu@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).