Regards _Sugesh
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:02 PM > To: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger > <stephen at networkplumber.org> > Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Richardson, > Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil > <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng.tan at intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags > > Hi, > > On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote: > >>> I guess the IP checksum also important as L4. In some cases, UDP > >>> checksum is zero and no need to validate it. But Ip checksum is > >>> present on all the packets and that must be validated all the time. > >>> At higher packet rate, the ip checksum offload can offer slight > >>> performance > >> improvement. What do you think?? > >>> > >> > >> Agree, in some situations (and this is even more true with packet > >> types / smartnics), the application could process without accessing > >> the packet data if we keep the IP cksum flags. > > [Sugesh] True, If that's the case, Will you considering to implement > > IP checksum flags as well along with L4? > > As you said , this will be useful when we offload packet lookup itself > > into the NICs(May be when using Flow director) ? > > Yes, I plan to implement the same rx status flags (good, bad, unknown, > none) for rx IP checksum too. [Sugesh] That's great!, Thank you Olivier. > > Regards, > Olivier
