From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: about rx checksum flags
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:02:26 +0200
Message-ID: <57581762.4070003@6wind.com>
References: <574C5B9D.4080006@6wind.com>
 <20160531080916.GI5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <574DE1FF.6060402@6wind.com>
 <20160531132820.4fadfc2e@xeon-e3> <574DFB11.5020701@6wind.com>
 <20160531150247.15819f1d@xeon-e3>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B694D3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDA800@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <57517B5C.4040206@6wind.com>
 <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDC6C0@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
To: "Chandran, Sugesh" <sugesh.chandran@intel.com>,
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61C8ADDF
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  8 Jun 2016 15:02:33 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDC6C0@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.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 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
>>> I guess the IP checksum also important as L4. In some cases, UDP
>>> checksum is zero and no need to validate it. But Ip checksum is
>>> present on all the packets and that must be validated all  the time.
>>> At higher packet rate, the ip checksum offload can offer slight performance
>> improvement. What do you think??
>>>
>>
>> Agree, in some situations (and this is even more true with packet types /
>> smartnics), the application could process without accessing the packet data if
>> we keep the IP cksum flags.
> [Sugesh] True, If that's the case, Will you considering to implement IP
> checksum flags as well along with L4?
> As you said , this will be useful when we offload packet lookup itself into the NICs(May be
> when using Flow director) ? 

Yes, I plan to implement the same rx status flags (good, bad, unknown,
none) for rx IP checksum too.

Regards,
Olivier