05/10/2018 22:04, Ferruh Yigit: > On 10/4/2018 6:59 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > >> On 03.10.2018 21:14, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > >>>> On 03.10.2018 20:12, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>>>> From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > >>>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > >>>>>>> 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. > >> > >> SW parsing of the packet cannot help, since app should be sure > >> that HW has classified the packet as tunneled and provided information > >> about inner and outer checksum checks. > > > > > > I thought the question was, How does the application find how to treat > > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM (inner or outer)? > > Obviously, ptype will help here > > Not sure why SW parsing won't help here if SW parses and find it is an > > inner packet or it is not a tunneled packet. PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM treat as > > inner checksum for former case and PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM treated as plain l4 > > checksum in the latter case. > > I don't know if PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM is inner or outer with current design, > but wouldn't be easier if PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM always refer to outer and if > tunneled > use something like PKT_RX_INNER_L4_CKSUM, same for IP and TX.
The return of the come back of the "inner vs outer" discussion :-) There were some thoughts about what is the most convenient for apps doing decapsulation of tunnels. I think the decision was to choose inner as the default, while outer must be explicited. Honestly, we should not try to change again the meaning of symbols having no outer/inner word in their name, except if we have a very very good reason and arguments. And for new symbols, we must follow the community decision. However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
