From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen-OTpzqLSitTUnbdJkjeBofR2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum
 forwarding engine
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:10:07 -0800
Message-ID: <20150120091007.03159d8a@urahara>
References: <1418173403-30202-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DDF46@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <54BE4C70.7050406@6wind.com> <1542807.nc7D9yZXnR@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1542807.nc7D9yZXnR@xps13>
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>

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:18:01 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 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 ;)
> 

Sure. Although in my experience IP checksum is just as cheap done in
software since the header fits in cache.