-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:12:34 +0100 > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>, Jerin Jacob > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > CC: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing...@intel.com>, > "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, "Mcnamara, John" > <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, "Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, > "shah...@mellanox.com" <shah...@mellanox.com>, "didier.pall...@6wind.com" > <didier.pall...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > checksum definition > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/52.9.1 > > > On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:16 AM > >> To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > >> <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Wu, > >> Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Iremonger, Bernard > >> <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; > >> Kovacevic, Marko <marko.kovace...@intel.com>; Olivier Matz > >> <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org; shah...@mellanox.com; > >> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > >> didier.pall...@6wind.com > >> 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 <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>, Jerin Jacob > >>> <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, 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>, > >>> Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org, > >>> shah...@mellanox.com, > >>> "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>, > >>> didier.pall...@6wind.com > >>> 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 <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, > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>> 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.
UNKNOWN is not a bit. It is represented as 0. It spec has 2 bit, then driver need to report GOOD as well. Same applies for PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM as well. > > 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?
