From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:18:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1542807.nc7D9yZXnR@xps13> References: <1418173403-30202-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DDF46@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BE4C70.7050406@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54BE4C70.7050406-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 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