From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688EE4F94 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:00:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jul 2018 04:00:04 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,422,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="71654162" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2018 04:00:03 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.195]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.61]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 12:00:02 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "shahafs@mellanox.com" <shahafs@mellanox.com> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload Thread-Index: AQHUJ+rTbYTaAeI/8Ei5xbV+p36eKKSnl/VQ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:00:02 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F702@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20180729124409.3669-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F641@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20180730093555.GA22823@jerin> <1687236.JLa48GYJ5r@xps> In-Reply-To: <1687236.JLa48GYJ5r@xps> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiODRhYWU5YWYtMjdhMy00ZTMyLWFkY2EtMDQ2NmY3Y2M1ODhkIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiNmJYVkVkN1Vab3ZXQnB2S3BhSk1iYkZPTHlcL2x3SEZoNVVZR25oaEJNRWVsTkpPbTFBdzF4SmdZNUp6VGhcL0lLIn0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:00:06 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:51 AM > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <ko= nstantin.ananyev@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; shahafs@mellano= x.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload >=20 > 30/07/2018 11:35, Jerin Jacob: > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> > > > > > > > > As of now, application does not check PKT_RX_*_CKSUM_* flags per > > > > packet, so it does not matter DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM enabled or no= t. > > > > > > > > Removing DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM offload so that driver can save a = few > > > > cycles if possible. > > > > > > Personally, I'd move in other direction: keep RX checksum offload and= add > > > checks inside sample apps to handle (drop) packets with invalid check= sum. > > > > OK. Till someones add the DROP logic in application, Can we take > > this patch? Because there is no point in enabling DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKS= UM > > without DROP or any meaning full action in application. Probably, but at least it gives users a right estimation how long the prope= r RX/TX routine would take. >>From other side what the point to disable these flags now, if we know that we are doing wrong thing and will have to re-enable them again in future? >=20 > If there is no patch sent to use this offload on August 1st, > then I will apply this patch to remove the offload request. >=20 Isn't it too late to do such things right now? We are in RC3 stage and doesn't look like a critical issue. Konstantin