On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 22:22:04 +0000
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: usamanadeem321 <usama.nad...@emumba.com>
> >
> > Checks if IPV4, UDP and TCP Checksum offloads are available.
> > If not available, prints a warning message.
> >
> > Bugzilla ID: 545
> > Signed-off-by: usamanadeem321 <usama.nad...@emumba.com>
> > ---
> > examples/l3fwd/main.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/main.c b/examples/l3fwd/main.c
> > index 00ac267af1..ae62bc570d 100644
> > --- a/examples/l3fwd/main.c
> > +++ b/examples/l3fwd/main.c
> > @@ -123,7 +123,6 @@ static struct rte_eth_conf port_conf = {
> > .mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_RSS,
> > .max_rx_pkt_len = RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN,
> > .split_hdr_size = 0,
> > - .offloads = DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM,
> > },
> > .rx_adv_conf = {
> > .rss_conf = {
> > @@ -1039,6 +1038,27 @@ l3fwd_poll_resource_setup(void)
> > local_port_conf.txmode.offloads |=
> > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE;
> >
> > + if (dev_info.rx_offload_capa & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM)
> > + local_port_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
> > + DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM;
> > + else {
> > + printf("WARNING: IPV4 Checksum offload not
> > available.\n");
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (dev_info.rx_offload_capa & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM)
> > + local_port_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
> > + DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM;
> > +
> > + else
> > + printf("WARNING: UDP Checksum offload not
> > available.\n");
> > +
> > + if (dev_info.rx_offload_capa & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)
> > + local_port_conf.rxmode.offloads |=
> > + DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM;
> > +
> > + else
> > + printf("WARNING: TCP Checksum offload not
> > available.\n");
> > +
>
> Sorry, but I didn't get the logic:
> Application expects some offloads to be supported by HW.
The application is expecting more offloads than is necessary for basic
IP level forwarding which is all the example is documented to do.
"The application performs L3 forwarding."
> You add the code that checks for offloads, but if they are not supported just
> prints warning
> and continues, as if everything is ok. Doesn't look like correct behaviour to
> me.
> I think, it should either terminate with error message or be prepared to work
> properly
> on HW without these offloads (check cksums in SW if necessary).
> In fact I don't see what was wrong with original behaviour, one thing that
> probably
> was missing - more descriptive error message.
It is not a problem with your patch, it is fine.
It is a problem in how l3fwd has grown and changed and no longer really what
was intended in the original version. There is no reason that the application
should be looking at L4 data. In fact, it shouldn't care if it gets TCP, UDP,
SCP or DCCP;
but the application now depends on ptype.
It should be possible to do L3 forwarding independent of packet type.
The application only needs to look at Ether type and do IPv4 or IPv6 based on
that.
