Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

2015-01-20 13:39, Olivier MATZ:
> On 01/20/2015 02:12 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> So I will fix that in my coming patch series. Just for information,
> >> I'm pretty sure that having PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IP_CSUM as not
> >> exclusive flag would not require any change anywhere in the PMDs (even
> >> in i40e).
> >
> > Right now - no.
> > Though as I said from PMD perspective having them exclusive is a bit preferable.
> > Again, I don't see any big difference from upper layer code.
> 
> Sure, it does not make a big difference in terms of code. But
> in terms of API, the naming of the flag is coherent to what it is
> used for. And it's easier to find a simple definition, like:
> 
>   * Packet is IPv4. This flag must be set when using any offload feature
>   * (TSO, L3 or L4 checksum) to tell the NIC that the packet is an IPv4
>   * packet.

+1
It's clearer to set PKT_TX_IPV4 in all offload cases of IPv4 packets,
and add PKT_TX_IP_CSUM when checksum offload is required.

Simply simpler ;)

-- 
Thomas