From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmd: Add generic support for TCP TSO
	(Transmit Segmentation Offload)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:51:09 +0200
Message-ID: <2828270.80eTSv21yY@xps13>
References: <20141020094252.14456.58891.stgit@gklab-18-011.igk.intel.com>
 <1675767.ObibVazTHA@xps13>
 <7C4248CAE043B144B1CD242D275626532FDE0709@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
To: "Walukiewicz, Miroslaw" <Miroslaw.Walukiewicz-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <7C4248CAE043B144B1CD242D275626532FDE0709-kPTMFJFq+rGvNW/NfzhIbrfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

2014-10-20 12:45, Walukiewicz, Miroslaw:
> > >  	/* fields to support TX offloads */
> > > -	union {
> > > -		uint16_t l2_l3_len; /**< combined l2/l3 lengths as single var
> > */
> > > -		struct {
> > > -			uint16_t l3_len:9;      /**< L3 (IP) Header Length. */
> > > -			uint16_t l2_len:7;      /**< L2 (MAC) Header Length.
> > */
> > > +	/* two bytes - l2/l3 len for compatibility (endian issues)
> > > +	 * two bytes - reseved for alignment
> > > +	 * two bytes - l4 len (TCP/UDP) header len
> > > +	 * two bytes - TCP tso segment size
> > > + 	 */
> > > +	struct {
> > > +		union {
> > > +			uint16_t l2_l3_len; /**< combined l2/l3 len */
> > > +			struct {
> > > +				uint16_t l3_len:9; /**< L3 (IP) Header */
> > > +				uint16_t l2_len:7; /**< L2 (MAC) Header */
> > > +			};
> > >  		};
> > 
> > Why nesting these fields in an anonymous structure?
> 
> I want to keep a source compatibility with non-TSO applications using that
> field for example IP checksum computing by NIC. 
> Keeping this structure anonymous I do not require changes in old
> applications that do not need TSO support.
> 
> The second argument is that in original patch extending the rte_mbuf to 128
> bytes made by Bruce the author made this structure anonymous and I follow
> this assumption too.

Excuse me, maybe I missed something, but I still don't understand why you are
embedding the union into a struct?

-- 
Thomas