From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] lib/gro: add TCP/IPv4 GRO support
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:55:15 -0700
Message-ID: <20170620165515.1e4387cd@xeon-e3>
References: <1496833731-53653-1-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com>
 <1497770469-16661-1-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com>
 <1497770469-16661-3-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com>
 <20fd3a2c-9b61-2732-5a34-5acb8fc639a0@intel.com>
 <20170620032220.GB12728@localhost.localdomain>
 <21e9e28b-ba41-b88d-1f9a-b022b0d2c5ce@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jiayu Hu <jiayu.hu@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, yliu@fridaylinux.org, keith.wiles@intel.com,
 tiwei.bie@intel.com, lei.a.yao@intel.com
To: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f52.google.com (mail-pg0-f52.google.com [74.125.83.52])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293C93256
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:55:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id u62so50095900pgb.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <21e9e28b-ba41-b88d-1f9a-b022b0d2c5ce@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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, 21 Jun 2017 07:30:08 +0800
"Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com> wrote:

> >>> To process an incoming packet, we need three steps:
> >>> a. check if the packet should be processed. Packets with the following
> >>>       properties won't be processed:
> >>> 	- packets without data;
> >>> 	- packets with wrong checksums;  
> >> Why do we care to check this kind of error? Can we just suppose the
> >> applications have already dropped the packets with wrong cksum?  
> > Indeed, if we assume all inputted packets are correct, we can avoid
> > checksum checking overhead. But as a library, I think a more flexible
> > way is to enable applications to tell GRO API if checksum checking
> > is needed. For example, we can add a flag to struct rte_gro_tbl
> > and struct rte_gro_param, which indicates if the checksum checking
> > is needed. If applications set this flag, reassembly function won't
> > check packet checksum. Otherwise, we check the checksum. How do you
> > think?  
> 
> My opinion is to keep the library focusing on what it does, and make 
> clear its dependency. This flag thing will differ for different GRO 
> engines, which makes it a little complicated to me.

As long as it is documented behavior. GIGO is fine.
IMHO a well designed library does as little as possible and nothing more.