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 4AB4A6AAE for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:15:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 17:14:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,519,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="648600273" Received: from pgsmsx108.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.103]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 17:15:42 -0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by PGSMSX108.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:15:41 +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; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:15:40 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Olivier MATZ , "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+AgAAcbICAAZPxgP//tUAAgAGAJwA= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:15:40 +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> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC6D5@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC6D5@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.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: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 01:15:46 -0000 > -----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 rep= alce > PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM >=20 > Hi Helin, >=20 > > -----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. >=20 > Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and we are going t= o > remove it. >=20 > > It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'. >=20 > No one even planned it. >=20 > > '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 na= me. > > > > 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 > Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's pat= ch? > 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 >=20 > Konstantin >=20 > > > > > > > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 > > > > > > > > > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has a= n > opinion? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Olivier > > > > Regards, > > Helin