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 B989CDE4 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:51:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2015 08:50:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,488,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="763888977" Received: from kmsmsx154.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.14]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2015 08:50:54 -0700 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.110.14) by KMSMSX154.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:50:53 +0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.129]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.46]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:50:47 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: mbuf offload flags Thread-Index: AQHQv6tiAhvaBHKuIE6SY0S77XgoMZ3ePTwQ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:50:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6168490.VZvRJEXbFC@xps13> In-Reply-To: <6168490.VZvRJEXbFC@xps13> 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 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] mbuf offload flags 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, 16 Jul 2015 15:51:02 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 2:39 AM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; olivier.matz@6wind.com > Subject: mbuf offload flags >=20 > Helin, >=20 > In commit http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=3Dc22265f6fd4cdc, some > fake flags were added: >=20 > #define PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD (0ULL << 0) /**< External IP header > checksum error. */ > #define PKT_RX_OVERSIZE (0ULL << 0) /**< Num of desc of an RX pkt > oversize. */ > #define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0) /**< Header buffer overflow. > */ > #define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< Hardware processing error. > */ > #define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< MAC error. */ >=20 > Can we remove them? Yes, I agree with you, except PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD. >=20 > In a tunnel case, what means PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD and > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD? > Inner or outer? > The API comment must be updated. Currently PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD means outer IP checksum error. We may need to re-think it? PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD for outer for tunnel case, and add a new one for inner = IP checksum error case? For L4, do we need both outer and inner for tunnel case? One might be enoug= h. We can add one more for L4 checksum error, when it is really needed. For no= w, I don't see any case. Regards, Helin