On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:16 AM >> To: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> >> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko >> <[email protected]>; Lu, Wenzhuo <[email protected]>; Wu, >> Jingjing <[email protected]>; Iremonger, Bernard >> <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; >> Kovacevic, Marko <[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 >> >> -----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. > > Yes, as I remember PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD is based on > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM.
Switching to two bit won't reduce the portability, HW supports only reporting CKSUM_BAD can set BAD || UNKNOWN. And I think patch is not blocked by PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, it can be changed separately, for this patch question is can we represent PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_* with two bits, to have BAD/GOOD/UNKNOWN?
