From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: about rx checksum flags
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 21:11:43 +0200
Message-ID: <574DE1EF.8020504@6wind.com>
References: <574C5B9D.4080006@6wind.com>
 <f02e9d17-bb4a-e3c3-d48e-dd91d61f2fb3@intel.com>
 <20160531100851.GK1428@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06E32E8E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 21:11:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id z87so507220wmh.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 12:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160531100851.GK1428@6wind.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi,

On 05/31/2016 12:08 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:43:29AM +0800, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>> Why not take care of PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD? Is it too easy for sw to handle?
> 
> I thought PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD was to be modified in a similar fashion, but
> since you raise the issue, mlx4/mlx5 need this as well. These boards only
> report "good" checksums for L3 and L4.

Yep, maybe it was not so clear in my initial mail, but I think the L4
example should apply to IP as well.

>> For virtio, there's only one bit, VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_DATA_VALID, to indicate
>> that checksum is valid. Shall we differentiate L3 checksum and L4 checksum
>> in rte_mbuf.ol_flags?

>>From what I understand from the specification, when the driver
(virtio-net) receives a packet with the VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM
flag, it can be assumed that all checksums before hdr->csum_start are
valid. Here we would set PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD and PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE.

In case of VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_DATA_VALID, I understand that both L3 and
L4 of the outer header is valid. Here we would set PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD
and PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD.

Regards,
Olivier