From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
"Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:42:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BCC3B@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <548065FA.6040105@6wind.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:48 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Zhang, Helin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> >>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> >>>
> >>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>> 2/
> >>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* we want hw IP cksum */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */
> >> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
> >> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
> >> checksum offload is needed or not.
> >
> > Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and we are going to remove it.
> >
> >> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
> >
> > No one even planned it.
> >
> >> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
> >> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
> >>
> >> So here I got the option 3:
> >> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> >> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */
> >> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */
> >
> > Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> > Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?
>
> I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more
> coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names.
About renaming PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM: I don't mind.
But that means we would have to update all the drivers and apps that using PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM.
Again there are customers that using that flag in their apps right now.
They would have to change it too.
For me - too much hassle for such small nit.
Konstantin
>
> Regards,
> Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-04 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-02 15:06 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework Jijiang Liu
2014-12-02 15:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] mbuf:redefine three TX ol_flags Jijiang Liu
2014-12-03 11:35 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 15:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM Jijiang Liu
2014-12-03 11:41 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-03 12:59 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-03 14:41 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-04 2:08 ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-04 10:23 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 10:45 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-04 11:03 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 13:51 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-04 22:56 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-05 4:17 ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-04 6:52 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-04 7:52 ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-04 10:19 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 13:47 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-04 21:42 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2014-12-05 1:15 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-05 11:11 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 15:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] mbuf:replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len fields Jijiang Liu
2014-12-03 11:45 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-05 11:12 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 15:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-05 16:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-07 11:46 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BCC3B@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=jijiang.liu@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).