From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91D37E75 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:53:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2014 22:52:15 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,513,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="648055115" Received: from pgsmsx107.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.105]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2014 22:53:21 -0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by PGSMSX107.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:52:06 +0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.182]) by shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.216]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:52:05 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: Olivier MATZ , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Liu, Jijiang" , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM Thread-Index: AQHQDu5BZMvV7Xzwn0SVLY5kK7hoh5x9Tg+AgAAcbICAAZPxgA== Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:52:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1417532767-1309-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <1417532767-1309-3-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <547EF6E9.5040000@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC46D@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <547F211B.3040905@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <547F211B.3040905@6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 06:53:36 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and rep= alce > PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM >=20 > Hi Konstantin, >=20 > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not > >> appropriate. > > > > Sorry, didn't get you here. > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not? >=20 > Yes >=20 > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have > >> misunderstood: > >> > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html > > > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make PKT_TX_IP_CKSU= M, > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits. > > Something like: > > #define PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM (1 << X) > > #define PKT_TX_IPV6 (2 << X) > > #define PKT_TX_IPV4 (3 << X) > > > > "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; > > }" > > > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility. > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it. >=20 > ok, so we are back between: >=20 > 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 */ >=20 > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive >=20 > and >=20 > 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. It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'. '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 */ >=20 > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 >=20 >=20 > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an op= inion? >=20 > Regards, > Olivier Regards, Helin