From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 02:31:47 +0530
Message-ID: <20161130210146.GA6446@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com>
References: <1477486575-25148-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <D4643DF5.B8241%Harish.Patil@cavium.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0E2444@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <3517413.XL3bTbAyaC@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, Harish Patil
 <harish.patil@qlogic.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>, Rahul Lakkireddy
 <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>, Stephen Hurd <stephen.hurd@broadcom.com>, Jan
 Medala <jan@semihalf.com>, Jakub Palider <jpa@semihalf.com>, John Daley
 <johndale@cisco.com>, Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>, Rasesh Mody
 <rasesh.mody@qlogic.com>, "Jacob, Jerin" <Jerin.Jacob@cavium.com>, Yuanhan
 Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, Yong Wang <yongwang@vmware.com>, "Kulasek,
 TomaszX" <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>, <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-dm3nam03on0049.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1CE5680
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 22:01:59 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3517413.XL3bTbAyaC@xps13>
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>

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:26:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > >Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > > >"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > > >or
> > > >"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this mode"
> > > >
> > > 
> > > qede PMD doesn’t currently support TSO yet, it only supports Tx TCP/UDP/IP
> > > csum offloads.
> > > So Tx preparation isn’t applicable. So as of now -
> > > "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > 
> > Thanks for the answer.
> > Though please note that it not only for TSO.
> 
> Oh yes, sorry, my wording was incorrect.
> We need to know if any checksum preparation is needed prior
> offloading its final computation to the hardware or driver.
> So the question applies to TSO and simple checksum offload.
> 
> We are still waiting answers for
> 	bnxt, cxgbe, ena, nfp, thunderx, virtio and vmxnet3.

The thunderx devices don't need pseudo header checksum
in the packet for TSO or TX checksum offload. So..
"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"

> 
> > This is for any TX offload for which the upper layer SW would have
> > to modify the contents of the packet.
> > Though as I can see for qede neither PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM or PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM
> > exhibits any extra requirements for the user.
> > Is that correct?
>