From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964221518 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:27:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XuHsU-0004gS-1f; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:30:18 +0100 Message-ID: <54783FDF.4090006@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +0100 From: Olivier MATZ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Liu, Jijiang" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1417076319-629-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <5476F28F.7010802@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BADE4@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BADE4@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:27:06 -0000 Hi Konstantin, On 11/27/2014 04:29 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> As I suggested in the TSO thread, I think the following semantics >> is easier to understand for the user: >> >> - PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM: tell the NIC to compute IP cksum >> >> - PKT_TX_IPV4: tell the NIC it's an IPv4 packet. Required for L4 >> checksum offload or TSO. >> >> - PKT_TX_IPV6: tell the NIC it's an IPv6 packet. Required for L4 >> checksum offload or TSO. >> >> I think it won't make a big difference in the FVL driver. > > No, no big difference here, but I still think it will be a bit cleaner if all 3 flags would be nutually exclusive. > In fact, we can unite all 3 of them them into 2 bits, same as we doing for L4 checksum flags. In case of TSO, you need to set the PKT_TX_IPV4 flag. But as suggested by Yong Wang from Vmware [1], the vmxnet3 driver could support TSO without offloading IP checksum, so I think it's better to have flags for (is_ipv4 or is_ipv6), and another one to ask the ip_checksum. > You mean a new DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_* value, right? > Something like: DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TUNNEL? > And make i40e_dev_info_get() to return it? > Yes, forgot about it, sounds like a proper thing to do. Yes. I've seen that Jijiang is planning to add it in a future bug fix patch. That's fine to me. [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007775.html Regards, Olivier