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 C1AEA231C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:19:03 +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 1XuJch-0004jM-Po; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:22:15 +0100
Message-ID: <54785A15.1090301@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:18:45 +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>
 <547855C9.80507@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BB258@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BB258@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 11:19:03 -0000

Hi Konstantin,

On 11/28/2014 12:13 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Hmm, not sure how we will break compatibility in that case?
> If we'll make TX_IP_CKSUM to be 1 bit value (1 << X) then for current drivers nothing should change, no?

Yes, you're right, sorry.

Olivier