-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:45:02 +0100
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Olivier Matz
> <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> CC: dev@dpdk.org, sta...@dpdk.org, jiayu...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] mbuf: fix Tx offload mask
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/52.9.1
>
>
> On 9/13/2018 2:47 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > Fixes missing PKT_TX_UDP_SEG value in PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK.
> >
> > Fixes: 6d18505efaa6 ("vhost: support UDP Fragmentation Offload")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > Cc: jiayu...@intel.com
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
> > ---
> > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > index 9ce5d76d7..6a5dbbc8f 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -343,7 +343,8 @@ extern "C" {
> > PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \
> > PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MASK | \
> > PKT_TX_MACSEC | \
> > - PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)
> > + PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD | \
> > + PKT_TX_UDP_SEG)
>
> Also can you sort the list, it seem there was an intention to sort from high
> bits to low, but broken, it makes easy to recognize missing items later.
I think, sorting from high bits to low bits makes it easy to recognize.
If it broken, How about fixing that(order based on bits) while rebasing to top
of tree?
I don't have strong opinion or sorting based on bit order vs name. Just shared
my thought. Let me know your opinion, I will update it accordingly.
