-----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:00:37 +0300 > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > CC: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing...@intel.com>, > Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, John McNamara > <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>, Ferruh Yigit > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, > dev@dpdk.org, shah...@mellanox.com, "Ananyev, Konstantin" > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > checksum definition > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/52.9.1 > > On 03.10.2018 20:12, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 13:27:13 +0530 > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > > > To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > > CC: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu > > > <jingjing...@intel.com>, > > > Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, John McNamara > > > <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, > > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>, Ferruh Yigit > > > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, > > > dev@dpdk.org, shah...@mellanox.com, "Ananyev, Konstantin" > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > > > checksum definition > > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) > > > > > > External Email > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:34:52 +0300 > > > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Wenzhuo Lu > > > > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing...@intel.com>, Bernard > > > > Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, John McNamara > > > > <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, Marko Kovacevic > > > > <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, > > > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>, Ferruh Yigit > > > > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > CC: dev@dpdk.org, shah...@mellanox.com, "Ananyev, Konstantin" > > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > > > > checksum definition > > > > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 > > > > Thunderbird/60.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/18 10:24 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com><mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > > > > > > > > 1. I'm not sure that it is OK that mbuf and ethdev changes go in one > > > > patch. > > > > It seems typically mbuf changes go separately and mbuf changes > > > > should > > > > be applied to main dpdk repo. > > > > > > I don't have strong opinion on this. If there are no other objection, I > > > will split the patch further as mbuf and ethdev as you pointed out. > > > > > > > 2. I'd like to see thought why single bit is used for outer L2 checksum > > > > when > > > > 2 bits (UNKNOWN, BAD, GOOD, NONE) are used for PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM. > > > > May be it is OK, but it would be useful to state explicitly why it > > > > is decided > > > > to go this way. > > > I am following the scheme similar to OUTER IP checksum where we have only > > > one bit filed(PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD). I will mention in the git commit. > > > > > > > > > > 3. PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_MASK description says nothing if it is inner or > > > > outer. > > > > May be it is not directly related to changeset, but I think it > > > > would be really > > > > useful to clarify it. > > > I will update the comment. > > Hi Andrew, > > > > I looked at the other definitions in mbuf.h, according the documentation, > > If nothing is mentioned it is treated as inner if the packet is > > tunneled else it is outer most. So I would like avoid confusion by > > adding "inner" in the exiting PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_MASK comment. > > Technically it is not correct to say "inner" if the packet is not > > tunneled. So I am untouching the exiting comment. > > > > Yes, it is incorrect to say that it is inner. How does application find > how to treat PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM (inner or outer)? > Should it rely on packet type provided in mbuf?
AFAIK, Finding is it a tunneled packet or not is through ptype or SW has to parse the packet. For example, testpmd chooses later method using "csum parse-tunnel on <port>" to detect the presence of the tunnel. > Is it specified/mentioned somewhere? I don't know. It it not directly related to this change set, Olivier may know additional details. > > Andrew.
