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

["Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 6:20 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin; Olivier MATZ; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi Helin,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhang, Helin
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:52 AM
> > To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----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 repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> > >
> > > Hi Konstantin,
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > >> 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_CKSUM,
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > ok, so we are back between:
> > >
> > > 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?
The comments are different, PKT_TX_IPV4 has different meanings.

Regards,
Helin

> 
> Konstantin
> 
> >
> > >
> > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> > >
> > >
> > > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an
> opinion?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Olivier
> >
> > Regards,
> > Helin