From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] app/testpmd:test VxLAN Tx checksum offload Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:17:22 +0100 Message-ID: <5460E512.1050609@6wind.com> References: <1414376006-31402-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <1414376006-31402-11-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <54588BF7.309@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D8510E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <5459FBB2.1040408@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D8F399@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: "Liu, Jijiang" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D8F399-0J0gbvR4kThpB2pF5aRoyrfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi Jijiang, On 11/10/2014 07:03 AM, Liu, Jijiang wrote: >> Another thing is surprising me. >> >> - if PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM is not set (legacy use case), then the >> driver use l2_len and l3_len to offload inner IP/UDP/TCP checksums. > If the flag is not set, and imply that it is not VXLAN packet, > and do TX checksum offload as regular packet. > >> - if PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM is set, then the driver has to use >> inner_l{23}_len instead of l{23}_len for the same operation. > Your understanding is not fully correct. > The l{23}_len is still used for TX checksum offload, please refer to i40e_txd_enable_checksum() implementation. This fields are part of public mbuf API. You cannot say to refer to i40e PMD code to understand how to use it. >> Adding PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM changes the semantic of l2_len and l3_len. >> To fix this, I suggest to remove the new fields inner_l{23}_len then add >> outer_l{23}_len instead. Therefore, the semantic of l2_len and l3_len would not >> change, and a driver would always use the same field for a specific offload. > Oh... Does it mean you agree? >> For my TSO development, I will follow the current semantic. > For TSO, you still can use l{2,3} _len . > When I develop tunneling TSO, I will use inner_l3_len/inner_l4_len. I've just submitted a first version, please feel free to comment it. Regards, Olivier