From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:48:25 +0530 Message-ID: <20180730111823.GA30059@jerin> References: <20180729124409.3669-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F641@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20180730093555.GA22823@jerin> <1687236.JLa48GYJ5r@xps> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F702@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "shahafs@mellanox.com" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Return-path: Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03on0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.83]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2890F5592 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F702@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" -----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:00:02 +0000 > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" > To: Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob > > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" > , "shahafs@mellanox.com" > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload > > External Email > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:51 AM > > To: Jerin Jacob ; Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh ; shahafs@mellanox.com > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload > > > > 30/07/2018 11:35, Jerin Jacob: > > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" > > > > > > > > > > As of now, application does not check PKT_RX_*_CKSUM_* flags per > > > > > packet, so it does not matter DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM enabled or not. > > > > > > > > > > Removing DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM offload so that driver can save a few > > > > > cycles if possible. > > > > > > > > Personally, I'd move in other direction: keep RX checksum offload and add > > > > checks inside sample apps to handle (drop) packets with invalid checksum. > > > > > > OK. Till someones add the DROP logic in application, Can we take > > > this patch? Because there is no point in enabling DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM > > > without DROP or any meaning full action in application. > > Probably, but at least it gives users a right estimation how long the proper > RX/TX routine would take. For estimation, application can add any flag they want in local setup. It does not need to be upstream with out feature complete. > From other side what the point to disable these flags now, if we know that At least nicvf Rx routines are crafted based DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM flags. If driver Rx routine crafted such case it will be useful. > we are doing wrong thing and will have to re-enable them again in future? But it is not correct now either. Right? > > > > > If there is no patch sent to use this offload on August 1st, > > then I will apply this patch to remove the offload request. > > > > Isn't it too late to do such things right now? > We are in RC3 stage and doesn't look like a critical issue. Yes. We can add it when have we proper fix. Currently, it signaling a wrong interpretation to application. > Konstantin > >