On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:30:08 +0800 "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng....@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> To process an incoming packet, we need three steps: > >>> a. check if the packet should be processed. Packets with the following > >>> properties won't be processed: > >>> - packets without data; > >>> - packets with wrong checksums; > >> Why do we care to check this kind of error? Can we just suppose the > >> applications have already dropped the packets with wrong cksum? > > Indeed, if we assume all inputted packets are correct, we can avoid > > checksum checking overhead. But as a library, I think a more flexible > > way is to enable applications to tell GRO API if checksum checking > > is needed. For example, we can add a flag to struct rte_gro_tbl > > and struct rte_gro_param, which indicates if the checksum checking > > is needed. If applications set this flag, reassembly function won't > > check packet checksum. Otherwise, we check the checksum. How do you > > think? > > My opinion is to keep the library focusing on what it does, and make > clear its dependency. This flag thing will differ for different GRO > engines, which makes it a little complicated to me. As long as it is documented behavior. GIGO is fine. IMHO a well designed library does as little as possible and nothing more.
