Re: [dpdk-dev] mbuf offload flags

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-07-16 15:50, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > Helin,
> > 
> > In commit http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=c22265f6fd4cdc, some
> > fake flags were added:
> > 
> > #define PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD (0ULL << 0)  /**< External IP header
> > checksum error. */
> > #define PKT_RX_OVERSIZE      (0ULL << 0)  /**< Num of desc of an RX pkt
> > oversize. */
> > #define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0)  /**< Header buffer overflow.
> > */
> > #define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR     (0ULL << 0)  /**< Hardware processing error.
> > */
> > #define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR       (0ULL << 0)  /**< MAC error. */
> > 
> > Can we remove them?
> 
> Yes, I agree with you, except PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.

It is 0. Removing it shouldn't hurt.

> > In a tunnel case, what means PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD and
> > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD?
> > Inner or outer?
> > The API comment must be updated.
> 
> Currently PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD means outer IP checksum error.
> We may need to re-think it?
> PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD for outer for tunnel case, and add a new one for inner IP checksum error case?

Yes.
Maybe that having CKSUM_OK would be better to be sure it has been checked.

> For L4, do we need both outer and inner for tunnel case? One might be enough.
> We can add one more for L4 checksum error, when it is really needed. For now, I don't see any case.

I don't know.