Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM

[Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

Hi,

On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
>>>
>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 2/
>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
>> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
>> checksum offload is needed or not.
>
> Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  and we are going to remove it.
>
>> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
>
> No one even planned it.
>
>> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
>> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
>>
>> So here I got the option 3:
>> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>
> Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?

I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more
coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names.

Regards,
Olivier