From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mbuf:add three TX offload flags and
 change three fields
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:00:25 +0100
Message-ID: <547855C9.80507@6wind.com>
References: <1417107801-9544-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <1417107801-9544-2-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <54784232.8030707@6wind.com>
 <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9F2B9@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BB218@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
 "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu-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: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BB218-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 11/28/2014 11:40 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> Well, I still prefer them to be mutually exclusive.
> Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> 
> switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
>     case TX_IPV4:
>        ...
>        break;
>     case TX_IPV6:
>        ...
>        break;
>     case TX_IP_CKSUM:
>        ...
>        break;
> }
> 
> For the upper layer, I think there would be no big difference, what ways we will choose.

I think the 2 informations are transversal, and that's why I would
prefer 2 flags. Also, having 2 separate flags would also help to keep
backward compatibility with previous versions.

It may help to have other points of view to make the good decision.
I'll follow the majority.

Regards,
Olivier