From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FFD231C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:00:44 +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 <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1XuJKy-0004j6-0U; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:03:56 +0100
Message-ID: <547855C9.80507@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:00:25 +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: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, 
 "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1417107801-9544-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <1417107801-9544-2-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <54784232.8030707@6wind.com>
 <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9F2B9@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BB218@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BB218@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] mbuf:add three TX offload flags and
 change three fields
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: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:00:44 -0000

Hi Konstantin,

On 11/28/2014 11:40 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> Well, I still prefer them to be mutually exclusive.
> Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> 
> switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
>     case TX_IPV4:
>        ...
>        break;
>     case TX_IPV6:
>        ...
>        break;
>     case TX_IP_CKSUM:
>        ...
>        break;
> }
> 
> For the upper layer, I think there would be no big difference, what ways we will choose.

I think the 2 informations are transversal, and that's why I would
prefer 2 flags. Also, having 2 separate flags would also help to keep
backward compatibility with previous versions.

It may help to have other points of view to make the good decision.
I'll follow the majority.

Regards,
Olivier