From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
	checksum definition
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:04:51 +0200
Message-ID: <2218090.RkeNvosNi6@xps>
References: <20180913134707.23698-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <601d2413-e148-73c4-e7a5-59f09bd02451@intel.com>
 <20181008082421.GA3554@jerin>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, "Lu,
 Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, "Mcnamara,
 John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, "Kovacevic,
 Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "shahafs@mellanox.com" <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
 "didier.pallard@6wind.com" <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.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 D155E160
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  8 Oct 2018 11:04:55 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20181008082421.GA3554@jerin>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

08/10/2018 10:24, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > >> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >>> However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
> > >>
> > >> Do we need to block this patch due to the exiting PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD
> > >> definition?
> > >>
> > >> I already added the author of the PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag and ethdev and mbuf
> > >> maintainers in this list. So what else I need make forward progress
> > >> on this patch?
> > >>
> > >> I think, the definition of PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD based on HW capability. It
> > >> is safe to assume that ALL HW can support CKSUM BAD if the feature is
> > >> available and hence it is more portable.
> > >
> > > Yes, as I remember PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD is based on DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM.
> > 
> > Switching to two bit won't reduce the portability, HW supports only reporting
> > CKSUM_BAD can set BAD || UNKNOWN.
> 
> UNKNOWN is not a bit. It is represented as 0. It spec has 2 bit, then
> driver need to report GOOD as well.
> 
> Same applies for PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM as well.
> 
> > 
> > And I think patch is not blocked by PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, it can be changed
> > separately, for this patch question is can we represent PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_* with
> > two bits, to have BAD/GOOD/UNKNOWN?

Yes, exact.

PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD must be left aside.
We should just avoid taking it as a reference.
And we can reconsider its definition later.