2015-07-16 15:50, Zhang, Helin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > Helin, > > > > In commit http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=c22265f6fd4cdc, some > > fake flags were added: > > > > #define PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD (0ULL << 0) /**< External IP header > > checksum error. */ > > #define PKT_RX_OVERSIZE (0ULL << 0) /**< Num of desc of an RX pkt > > oversize. */ > > #define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0) /**< Header buffer overflow. > > */ > > #define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< Hardware processing error. > > */ > > #define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< MAC error. */ > > > > Can we remove them? > > Yes, I agree with you, except PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
It is 0. Removing it shouldn't hurt. > > In a tunnel case, what means PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD and > > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD? > > Inner or outer? > > The API comment must be updated. > > Currently PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD means outer IP checksum error. > We may need to re-think it? > PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD for outer for tunnel case, and add a new one for inner IP > checksum error case? Yes. Maybe that having CKSUM_OK would be better to be sure it has been checked. > For L4, do we need both outer and inner for tunnel case? One might be enough. > We can add one more for L4 checksum error, when it is really needed. For now, > I don't see any case. I don't know.
