On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:18:01 +0100 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 2015-01-20 13:39, Olivier MATZ: > > On 01/20/2015 02:12 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >> So I will fix that in my coming patch series. Just for information, > > >> I'm pretty sure that having PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IP_CSUM as not > > >> exclusive flag would not require any change anywhere in the PMDs (even > > >> in i40e). > > > > > > Right now - no. > > > Though as I said from PMD perspective having them exclusive is a bit > > > preferable. > > > Again, I don't see any big difference from upper layer code. > > > > Sure, it does not make a big difference in terms of code. But > > in terms of API, the naming of the flag is coherent to what it is > > used for. And it's easier to find a simple definition, like: > > > > * Packet is IPv4. This flag must be set when using any offload feature > > * (TSO, L3 or L4 checksum) to tell the NIC that the packet is an IPv4 > > * packet. > > +1 > It's clearer to set PKT_TX_IPV4 in all offload cases of IPv4 packets, > and add PKT_TX_IP_CSUM when checksum offload is required. > > Simply simpler ;) > Sure. Although in my experience IP checksum is just as cheap done in software since the header fits in cache.
