From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:35:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10D10F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170126160516.398ac002@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
Hi Olivier,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:05 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:58:08 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jingjng,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jingjing Wu
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:48 AM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload
> > > flags
> > >
> > > Some Tx offload flags are missed in Bitmask of all supported packet
> > > Tx offload features flags.
> > > This patch fixes it.
> >
> > Not sure what it exactly fixes?
> > As I remember these flags don't specify any TX offload for HW to
> > perform, But just provide information to the TX function.
> > Again, why only i40e code is modified?
> > As I remember we have the same code in other PMDs too.
> > Konstantin
> >
> > >
> > > Fixes: 4fb7e803eb1a ("ethdev: add Tx preparation")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > index bfce9f4..e57a4d2 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > @@ -295,8 +295,12 @@ extern "C" {
> > > */
> > > #define PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \
> > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \
> > > + PKT_TX_IPV6 | \
> > > PKT_TX_L4_MASK | \
> > > PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM | \
> > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | \
> > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 | \
> > > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | \
> > > PKT_TX_QINQ_PKT | \
> > > PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \
> > > --
> > > 2.4.11
> >
>
> Also, it looks like MACSEC is missing. To avoid forgetting flags in
> the future, what do you think about doing the following (not tested)?
>
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> index b3cccfc..aa1dc76 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> @@ -182,9 +182,11 @@ extern "C" {
> */
> #define PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP (1ULL << 17)
>
> -/* add new RX flags here */
> +/* add new RX flags here, and update __PKT_RX_NEXT */
> +#define __PKT_RX_NEXT (1ULL << 18)
>
> -/* add new TX flags here */
> +/* add new TX flags here, and update __PKT_TX_NEXT */
> +#define __PKT_TX_NEXT (1ULL << 43)
>
> /**
> * Offload the MACsec. This flag must be set by the application to enable
> @@ -295,17 +297,16 @@ extern "C" {
> #define PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 (1ULL << 60)
>
> /**
> + * Bitmask of all supported packet Rx offload features flags,
> + * which can be set for packet.
> + */
> +#define PKT_RX_OFFLOAD_MASK (__PKT_RX_NEXT - 1)
> +
> +/**
> * Bitmask of all supported packet Tx offload features flags,
> * which can be set for packet.
> */
> -#define PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \
> - PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \
> - PKT_TX_L4_MASK | \
> - PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM | \
> - PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | \
> - PKT_TX_QINQ_PKT | \
> - PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \
> - PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MASK)
> +#define PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ((~(__PKT_TX_NEXT - 1)) & 0x1fffffffffffffff)
I see your point but should, let say, PKT_TX_IPV4 be part of PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK at all?
It doesn't really define any offload for PMD/HW to perform.
It just provide extra information for PMD so it can successfully process other offload requests.
Konstantin
>
> #define __RESERVED (1ULL << 61) /**< reserved for future mbuf use */
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-26 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 11:47 Jingjing Wu
2017-01-24 11:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/i40e: fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Jingjing Wu
2017-01-26 14:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-26 15:05 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-01-26 15:35 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2017-01-26 15:57 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-01-26 16:33 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-24 11:50 Jingjing Wu
2017-01-26 14:19 ` 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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10D10F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
/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).