From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:55:16 +0100
Message-ID: <5475E9D4.6000607@6wind.com>
References: <1415984609-2484-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <1416524335-22753-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <1416524335-22753-9-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BA62A@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <5475B622.8030705@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BA869@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "jigsaw-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" <jigsaw-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
 "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" <dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BA869-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

Hi Konstantin,

On 11/26/2014 01:25 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> By the way (this is probably off-topic), but I'm wondering if the TX
>> flags should have the same values than the RX flags:
>>
>>     #define PKT_TX_IPV4          PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR
>>     #define PKT_TX_IPV6          PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR
>
> Thought about that too.
>  From one side,  it is a bit out of our concept: separate RX and TX falgs.
>  From other side, it allows us to save 2 bits in the ol_flags.
> Don't have any strong opinion here.
> What do you think?

I have no strong opinion too, but I have a preference for 2 different
bit values for these flags:

- as you say, it's matches the concept (RX and TX flags are separated)

- 64 bits is a lot, we have some time before there is no more available
   bit... and I hope we it will never occur because it would become
   complex for an application to handle them all

- it will avoid to send a packet with a bad info:
   - we receive a Ether/IP6/IP4/L4/data packet
   - the driver sets PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR
   - the stack decapsulates IP6
   - the stack sends the packet, it has the PKT_TX_IPV6 flag but it's an
     IPv4 packet

   This is not a real problem as the flag will not be used by the
   driver/hardware (it's only mandatory for hw cksum / tso), but
   it can be confusing.

Regards,
Olivier