From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: mbuf offload flags
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:11:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4071939.eQPuFrO73t@xps13>
References: <6168490.VZvRJEXbFC@xps13>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8959DD@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903DF5A64
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:13:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wgxm20 with SMTP id m20so62404541wgx.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8959DD@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
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>

2015-07-16 15:50, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > Helin,
> > 
> > In commit http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=c22265f6fd4cdc, some
> > fake flags were added:
> > 
> > #define PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD (0ULL << 0)  /**< External IP header
> > checksum error. */
> > #define PKT_RX_OVERSIZE      (0ULL << 0)  /**< Num of desc of an RX pkt
> > oversize. */
> > #define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0)  /**< Header buffer overflow.
> > */
> > #define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR     (0ULL << 0)  /**< Hardware processing error.
> > */
> > #define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR       (0ULL << 0)  /**< MAC error. */
> > 
> > Can we remove them?
> 
> Yes, I agree with you, except PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.

It is 0. Removing it shouldn't hurt.

> > In a tunnel case, what means PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD and
> > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD?
> > Inner or outer?
> > The API comment must be updated.
> 
> Currently PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD means outer IP checksum error.
> We may need to re-think it?
> PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD for outer for tunnel case, and add a new one for inner IP checksum error case?

Yes.
Maybe that having CKSUM_OK would be better to be sure it has been checked.

> For L4, do we need both outer and inner for tunnel case? One might be enough.
> We can add one more for L4 checksum error, when it is really needed. For now, I don't see any case.

I don't know.