From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991FDA034F; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 19:40:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3190C4068C; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 19:40:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qk1-f176.google.com (mail-qk1-f176.google.com [209.85.222.176]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0324068B for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 19:40:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qk1-f176.google.com with SMTP id t62so17184331qke.7 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:40:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5GThNP3N9Fk45JVpwGZTFRoAsTrxqOly8Lph/VBvzBk=; b=Eg6mtrtlihdEp+RqbPfF9+V8JJew/d1YiK0LTbQn9pBDAM9Hq7WrcXQIKKwHmqe6Ko NPJPkM9ahK1Il6Sw/s2jL3b2Nk7s55tUlRxRDcqu8GfcYXkH6qw9NOA8eeDwEpdVn7r+ FmxV4v+Q9rC1IoiWlL5FjxmcMb5yXLLf2EUgQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5GThNP3N9Fk45JVpwGZTFRoAsTrxqOly8Lph/VBvzBk=; b=jEiH3s3NPcjvAZ9RUUOFAmUUZKkh67atULahzZh1L1MW7G/bXj0pkulGabdR0Qi34R KsVTdG0KGogtl9cAvt1mIdgbrrHYyd2/nbXYkkoHjIU2SAIb7QlvVpRYvWQXAiK0mQFo VYBt836EvRFWXmrY5YktfXnRj2aSFC8kfnnJnO8Fd6CXMlpMGpyXyDj2yZo7tCZVxZJp 0quzYNtgRs388j13Vucbszwd0KpfMzYbyo9oCXlFzLVjDbs7itV59bZ0Hq5kquULOoPw 7k+eyVTEmdxsuOADg95/jyOb6AvO6ELSNSHDYy0iEXvaPuhlQa92Rxrn5+r/FMRpohaI 4TNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314Jj5ONFH2YlNqtiMp44m5gXOXibnqGxyXvffinqu/70p6kXRe xAawpoZ39hmq4u8B9DKPq/PoZ6cZ4SpbzzpyJCTcMg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3ErYrOWBzZ1g861nlTsdMx23EohtDqySHprP3skUUEbCczI8kCB5dHmtAGvDrhkoixKIprObMtiekk2b9a+w= X-Received: by 2002:a37:86c6:: with SMTP id i189mr7125498qkd.455.1614105611386; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:40:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210129223554.103012-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ajit Khaparde Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:39:54 -0800 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Wisam Monther , Lance Richardson , Wenzhuo Lu , Xiaoyun Li , Bernard Iremonger , Olivier Matz , Andrew Rybchenko , "dev@dpdk.org" , Kalesh Anakkur Purayil , Thomas Monjalon Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000009e18ea05bc053f1a" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 21.05] app/testpmd: count outer IP checksum errors X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" --0000000000009e18ea05bc053f1a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:36 AM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 1/31/2021 11:53 AM, Wisam Monther wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev On Behalf Of Lance Richardson > >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 12:36 AM > >> To: Wenzhuo Lu ; Xiaoyun Li > >> ; Bernard Iremonger > >> > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ajit Kumar Khaparde ; > >> Kalesh Anakkur Purayil > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 21.05] app/testpmd: count outer IP checksum > >> errors > >> > >> Count and display outer IP checksum errors in the checksum forwarder. > >> > >> Example forwarder stats output: > >> RX-packets: 158 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 158 > >> Bad-ipcsum: 48 Bad-l4csum: 48 Bad-outer-l4csum: 6 > >> Bad-outer-ipcsum: 40 > >> TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 TX-total: 0 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lance Richardson > >> Reviewed-by: Ajit Kumar Khaparde > >> Reviewed-by: Kalesh Anakkur Purayil >> anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com> > > > > Acked-by: Wisam Jaddo > > > > Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit > Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks. > > > > 'PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD' is documented in mbuf header as: > "/** External IP header checksum error. */" > > I think 'External' wording is confusing, as well as 'EIP' abbreviation, what do > you think to create another macro alias to existing one, and mark the old one as > deprecated? +1 > --0000000000009e18ea05bc053f1a--