> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:22 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <[email protected]>; Wu, Jingjing <[email protected]>;
> Iremonger, Bernard <[email protected]>;
> Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Kovacevic, Marko
> <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon
> <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; Andrew
> Rybchenko <[email protected]>; Olivier Matz
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
> checksum definition
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:17:18 +0000
> > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <[email protected]>
> > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>
> > CC: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <[email protected]>, "Wu, Jingjing"
> > <[email protected]>, "Iremonger, Bernard"
> > <[email protected]>, "Mcnamara, John" <[email protected]>,
> > "Kovacevic, Marko" <[email protected]>, Thomas Monjalon
> > <[email protected]>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <[email protected]>, Andrew
> > Rybchenko <[email protected]>, Olivier Matz
> > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
> > checksum definition
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 9:59 AM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <[email protected]>; Wu, Jingjing
> > > <[email protected]>; Iremonger, Bernard
> <[email protected]>;
> > > Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Kovacevic, Marko
> > > <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; Andrew
> > > Rybchenko <[email protected]>; Olivier Matz
> > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
> > > checksum definition
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 08:53:22 +0000
> > > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <[email protected]>
> > > > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>, "Lu, Wenzhuo"
> > > > <[email protected]>, "Wu, Jingjing" <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Iremonger, Bernard" <[email protected]>, "Mcnamara, John"
> > > > <[email protected]>, "Kovacevic, Marko"
> > > > <[email protected]>,
> > > > Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>, "Yigit, Ferruh"
> > > > <[email protected]>, Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>,
> > > > Olivier Matz <[email protected]>
> > > > CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP
> > > > checksum definition
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jerin,
> > >
> > > Hi Konstantin,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Introduced DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM Rx offload flag and
> > > > > PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD mbuf ol_flags to detect outer UDP checksum
> > > > > failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > - To use hardware Rx outer UDP checksum offload, the user needs to
> > > > > configure DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM offload flags in slowpath.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Driver updates the PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD mbuf ol_flag on checksum
> > > > > failure
> > > > > similar to the outer L3 PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Looks ok to me in general.
> > > > Just wonder is there any PMD that supports all these new features?
> > >
> > > octeontx2 PMD has this feature. I am planning to push the PMD for v19.02.
> > > Before that I adding all the common code change to avoid the dependency.
> >
> > Ok, but why then ethdev/mbuf changes has to go into 18.11?
>
> It it is a generic change then why not? What is the real concern here?
If there is no implementation for it, how we can conclude that it is really
'generic' one? :)
My main concern is that we already have several features in rte_ethdev and
rte_security
that supposed to be 'generic' but right now no-one support them.
I wouldn't to object about these particular features, they look reasonable to
me.
But in general I think we need some better defined policy -
about what is allowed to propagate without real evidence (particular
implementation)
and what is not.
>
> > Do you plan your new PMD backward compatible with 18.11 LTS?
>
> Yes.
I see.
Konstantin
