From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:47:38 +0100 Message-ID: <548065FA.6040105@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> <547F211B.3040905@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC6D5@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" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Liu, Jijiang" , "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC6D5-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@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, On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >>> 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 */ >> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the >> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware >> checksum offload is needed or not. > > Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and we are going to remove it. > >> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'. > > No one even planned it. > >> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess >> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name. >> >> So here I got the option 3: >> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */ >> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ >> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */ > > Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch? > Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM? I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names. Regards, Olivier