> -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 1:29 AM > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; echau...@redhat.com; m...@redhat.com; > sta...@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei > <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Sinha, > Abhijit <abhijit.si...@intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu <radu.nico...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 1:54 PM Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading > > > > > > The only presence of RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 can't be used as an > > > indicator that a checksum offload has been requested by an application. > > > > According to current implementation, actually the only presence of > RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 will cause IIPT = 10b, this scenario corresponds to an > 'IPv4 packet with no IP checksum offload,' according to datasheet. > > So, I assume in this situation, the PMD continues to operate under the > assumption that the application has not requested checksum offloading. > > > > Could you share more insight what is the failure, maybe we can perform a > more comprehensive investigation? > > I think the missing piece is that OVS passes a l2_len == l3_len == 0. > In our tests, we could see that tx_errors get incremented for each failed > packet > to transmit.
OK, do you think to ignore RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 when l3_len = 0 is a better fix? > > > -- > David Marchand
