-----Original Message----- > Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 00:44:52 +0200 > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > To: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]>, Jerin Jacob > <[email protected]>, Andrew Rybchenko > <[email protected]> > Cc: Wenzhuo Lu <[email protected]>, Jingjing Wu <[email protected]>, > Bernard Iremonger <[email protected]>, John McNamara > <[email protected]>, Marko Kovacevic <[email protected]>, > Olivier Matz <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], > "Ananyev, Konstantin" <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > checksum definition > > > 05/10/2018 22:04, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 10/4/2018 6:59 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > >> On 03.10.2018 21:14, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > >>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > >>>> On 03.10.2018 20:12, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > >>>>> From: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > >>>>>>> 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, > > >>>>> > > However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
Do we need to block this patch due to the exiting PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD definition? I already added the author of the PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag and ethdev and mbuf maintainers in this list. So what else I need make forward progress on this patch? I think, the definition of PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD based on HW capability. It is safe to assume that ALL HW can support CKSUM BAD if the feature is available and hence it is more portable. > >
