From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545F7A04FD;
	Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:25:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEED1400EF;
	Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:25:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from shelob.oktetlabs.ru (shelob.oktetlabs.ru [91.220.146.113])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C3F400D4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:25:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.38.17] (aros.oktetlabs.ru [192.168.38.17])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shelob.oktetlabs.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7784266;
 Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:25:49 +0300 (MSK)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 shelob.oktetlabs.ru 7784266
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=oktetlabs.ru;
 s=default; t=1668072349;
 bh=LRSW3AJZDDiZttmD68S3vfD5503W69kX6a0GmZZNdrk=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From;
 b=jxqBks2pqMDjogAW7v7hPdoJ6VtlZvtAQszmg7EB8qTCsOIJhkk0LdEqgCd+1oD5o
 ptWemLzlXRs/KqShdG7X1x6dJ1Bzb5x5Ls0wKoayFGEsRUpMfUTESGmWISSGVmiJBT
 OlzQ2986Ads53IvvUOuw7PLWKu01QYSiCa85UU8Q=
Message-ID: <8bea1ef1-1977-f24f-f549-0c2126c23e3c@oktetlabs.ru>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:25:49 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=c3=b8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Organization: OKTET Labs
Subject: Is it correct to report checksum good when there is no checksum?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org

Hi all,

some drivers report RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD for IPv6 packets.
For me it looks strange, but I see some technical reasons behind.
Documentation in lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h is a bit vague.
Should UNKNOWN or NONE be used instead?

Thanks,
Andrew.