From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2A11518
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:12:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z12so6040895wgg.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 02:12:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=JRzlLS77SQyt0NHg+hWjXimPiHqgB4cFHrxUnjulusM=;
 b=enTNDfgdmbshszg7FdWFm9Fej08uCivDQp/Y64W9T4AyyBthdsrJ05Wo2U+Bs3GMSf
 /h/C1GRdNP2dFX78te2YobrGFsLqnTeRHeOtQfHtA2eHU/1XqXyOlKKyNh7+rZ9z4bEq
 4gcITtLCMu3RVCYa3VU6wes2y7LgKnlkm9PJOIhN5v3c2GLa8L59xamzHFI9vfaEQhOj
 QlcI+vADBZEwyMXPWubAjHD/qthqdsg1sYi7wRY9UI4ad6xESOdzOWwVQyGPnoQqwqa7
 L+wFrK1oX1q5XM+VEbqsU45e4RRqNzy2e2ISxutxCWP4Fe0z8tI5P/MJsUGJtFkZ9Lbx
 nI8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAMfvN9kAtL8kT+i9/956fUEHqduTQLJofonp+ZUeRimg9No83NtllTS1gEAGnQZ8urZxI
X-Received: by 10.194.71.45 with SMTP id r13mr10535775wju.128.1417083162719;
 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 02:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.16.0.195] (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net.
 [82.239.227.177])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vy7sm10017881wjc.27.2014.11.27.02.12.41
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 02:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5476F919.9030906@6wind.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:12:41 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
References: <1417076319-629-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <5476F28F.7010802@6wind.com>
In-Reply-To: <5476F28F.7010802@6wind.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:12:43 -0000


>> We have got some feedback about backward compatibility of VXLAN TX
>> checksum offload API with 1G/10G NIC after the i40e VXLAN TX checksum
>> codes were applied, so we have to rework the APIs on i40e, including
>> the changes of mbuf, i40e PMD and csum engine.
>>
>> The main changes in mbuf are as follows,
>> In place of removing PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, we introducing 2 new flags:
>> PKT_TX_OUT_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT, and a new field: l4_tun_len.
>
> What about PKT_TX_OUT_UDP_CKSUM instead of PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT? It's
> maybe more coherent with the other names.

oh I just realized that the flag is not for asking to the hardware
to calculate the outer UDP checksum.
So why does the hardware need this information?