08/10/2018 14:25, Jerin Jacob: > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > On 10/8/2018 12:55 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > >> On 10/8/2018 10:37 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > >>>> 08/10/2018 10:24, Jerin Jacob: > > >>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > >>>>>> On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >>>>>>> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > > >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > >>>>>>>>> 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? > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes, exact. > > >>>> > > >>>> PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD must be left aside. > > >>>> We should just avoid taking it as a reference. > > >>>> And we can reconsider its definition later. > > >>> > > >>> OK. > > >>> > > >>> IMO, Using 2 bit scheme for tunneled checksum has following performance > > >>> issue from driver side. > > >>> > > >>> Driver need to mark the packet as GOOD. All the HW can support > > >>> detection of BAD. That not necessary mean GOOD in case of tunnel packet, > > >>> so driver has to detect the packet is tunneled and packet is not BAD > > >>> then mark GOOD. > > >> > > >> Yes UNKNOWN is not a bit, but a state, why don't use it? Why driver has > > >> to check > > >> it is GOOD? > > > > > > The application is going to check is it GOOD or not. Not the driver, > > > Right? My concern was, If application starts dropping the packet instead > > > checking the BAD, if > > > it checks == !GOOD. > > > > Got it, but when 2 bits state introduced, app should check if check == BAD > > for > > drop decision, because it is not GOOD || BAD anymore. > > Got it. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 0x0 => UNKNOWN > > >> 0x1 => BAD > > >> 0x2 => GOOD > > >> 0x3 => ? (invalid perhaps) > > >> > > >> HW that supports detecting good packets can set BAD || GOOD state, HW > > >> can detect > > >> only BAD packet can set BAD || UNKNOWN state. > > >> > > >> If BAD is not set, there is an ambiguity of state, lets clarify it in > > >> lower > > >> level, if it is UNKNOWN, let application know it is UNKNOWN. > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > How about the following then? > > > > > > /** > > > * Mask of bits used to determine the status of outer RX L4 checksum. > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN: no information about the outer RX L4 > > > checksum > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is wrong > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is valid > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_INVALID: invalid outer L4 checksum state. > > > * > > > * The detection of PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD shall be based on the given > > > * HW capability, At minimum, the PMD should support > > > * PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN and PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD states > > > * if the offload is available. > > > */ > > > #define PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_MASK ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22)) > > > > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_UNKNOWN 0 > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 21) > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD (1ULL << 22) > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_INVALID ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22)) > > > > Looks good to me. > > If there is no objection with above flag definition, I will send the v3 with > that.
Just one objection about the name. Why naming it EL4 and commenting as outer L4? I think we should choose between "external" and "outer". Convention seems to be choosing "outer" word. So I suggest PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_*.
