From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
 repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:41:31 +0100
Message-ID: <547F211B.3040905@6wind.com>
References: <1417532767-1309-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <1417532767-1309-3-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <547EF6E9.5040000@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC46D@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC46D-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 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
>> appropriate.
>
> Sorry, didn't get you here.
> Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?

Yes

>> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may
>> have misunderstood:
>>
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
>
> In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> Something like:
> #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
>
> "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;
> }"
>
> As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.

ok, so we are back between:

1/ (Jijiang's patch)
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */

with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive

and

2/
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */

with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4


Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an
opinion?

Regards,
Olivier