From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: introduce generic IP/UDP
	tunnel checksum and TSO
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:10:45 +0200
Message-ID: <1730546.bKXeCS2adt@xps>
References: <20180408123240.110698-1-xuemingl@mellanox.com>
 <1859185.d5eMTAXH7r@xps>
 <VI1PR05MB167818DEDFFA01B452A8294AACB70@VI1PR05MB1678.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
 Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" <xuemingl@mellanox.com>,
 Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EE3AAA0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:10:48 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR05MB167818DEDFFA01B452A8294AACB70@VI1PR05MB1678.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

17/04/2018 09:53, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 08/04/2018 14:32, Xueming Li:
> > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > @@ -210,6 +210,8 @@ extern "C" {
> > >  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_GENEVE  (0x4ULL << 45)  /**< TX packet with
> > > MPLS-in-UDP RFC 7510 header. */  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MPLSINUDP
> > > (0x5ULL << 45)
> > > +#define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_IP (0xDULL << 45) /**< Tx IP tunneled packet.
> > > +*/ #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_UDP (0xEULL << 45) /**< Tx UDP tunneled
> > > +packet. */
> > 
> > I think you need to explain in details, in the comments, what we can expect when using these flags.
> > Please write the doxygen comment on the lines before the flag.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> > 
> > Any reason for using 0xD and 0xE values?
> > Because they are more generic than the first ones?
> 
> Yes, do you think it better to continue with previous ones?

No strong opinion.
Olivier?