> -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 8:11 PM > To: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported > Tx flags > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wu, Jingjing > > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 8:54 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of > > supported Tx flags > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:11 PM > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing > > > <jingjing...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of > > > supported Tx flags > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, > > > > Konstantin > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 11:59 AM > > > > To: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of > > > > supported Tx flags > > > > > > > > Hi Jingjing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Wu, Jingjing > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 3:36 AM > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported Tx > > > > > flags > > > > > > > > > > Add missed flags to bitmask of all supported packet Tx flags. > > > > > > > > > > CC: konstantin.anan...@intel.com > > > > > Fixes: 7829b8d52be0 ("net/ixgbe: add Tx preparation") > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingjing Wu <jingjing...@intel.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c index 36f1c02..8454581 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > > > > > @@ -81,13 +81,28 @@ > > > > > #include "ixgbe_rxtx.h" > > > > > > > > > > /* Bit Mask to indicate what bits required for building TX > > > > > context */ > > > > > +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588 > > > > > #define IXGBE_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \ > > > > > PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \ > > > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \ > > > > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \ > > > > > PKT_TX_L4_MASK | \ > > > > > + PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST | \ > > > > > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | \ > > > > > PKT_TX_MACSEC | \ > > > > > - PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) > > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM | \ > > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4) > > > > > +#else > > > > > +#define IXGBE_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \ > > > > > + PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \ > > > > > + PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \ > > > > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \ > > > > > > > > Wonder why ixgbe doesn't have PKT_TX_IPV6? > > > > > > Same question for e1000 and fm10k. > > > Also if you decided to go that way, you'll probably need to update > > > TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for enic and vmxnet3. > > > That's why I still think it would be much less hassle not to include > > > these flags > > > (PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6) into TX_OFFLOAD_MASK at all. > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing that. PKT_TX_IPV6 is missed. > > About whether include these flags (PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6) into > > TX_OFFLOAD_MASK, I think they should be Included. Think about one NIC > may support IPV4 L4 checksum offload, but not support IPV6? Even I don't > know who it is. > > > > I don't think such combination is possible now anyway. > But ok, if your preference is it to do more work and add (PKT_TX_IPV4 | > PKT_TX_IPV6) into all required places, I wouldn't argue. > > BTW, as a side notice, what will be really good is to have a function that > would take tx_offload_capabilities as an input and return tx_offload_mask. > That would remove necessity to update/support TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for > each PMD, and hopefully will allow to avoid confusion for PMD writers. > Though that's probably subject of another patch. >
OK. I think what I did is more than necessary. Let me simplify the change. Thanks! And about the querying tx offload capabilities, I think it is already been done In rte_eth_dev_info_get. But it used another set of flags which is not TX flags Defined in mbuf. Jingjing
