> On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> Mark, another question in this area of code. Looking at ixgbe_tx_csum,
> I'm wondering what happens with those default cases for the switch
> statements. If those are hit for whatever reason does that mean the
> checksum is never resolved? It s
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> I suspect this is not UDP-encapsulation specific, will it work with
>> TCP/IP/IP, TCP/IP/GRE etc.?
>
Mark, another question in this area of code. Looking at ixgbe_tx_csum,
I'm wondering w
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Rustad, Mark D
>> wrote:
>
>>> Note: NETIF_F_HW_CSUM is a superset of NETIF_F_IP_CSUM + NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM.
>>> It means that device can fill TCP/UDP-like che
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Rustad, Mark D
> wrote:
>> Note: NETIF_F_HW_CSUM is a superset of NETIF_F_IP_CSUM + NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM.
>> It means that device can fill TCP/UDP-like checksum anywhere in the packets
>> whatever headers there mi
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Rustad, Mark D
> wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect this is not UDP-encapsulation specific, will it work with
>>> TCP/IP/IP, TCP/IP/GRE etc.?
>>
>> It could do more, but
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> I suspect this is not UDP-encapsulation specific, will it work with
>> TCP/IP/IP, TCP/IP/GRE etc.?
>
> It could do more, but this is what has been tested up to this point.
>
Well, please
> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> I suspect this is not UDP-encapsulation specific, will it work with
> TCP/IP/IP, TCP/IP/GRE etc.?
It could do more, but this is what has been tested up to this point.
> Isn't there anyway the ixgbe could just be made to NETIF_HW_CSUM? That
>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Jeff Kirsher
wrote:
> From: Mark Rustad
>
> By using GSO for UDP-encapsulated packets, all ixgbe devices can
> be directed to generate checksums for the inner headers because
> the outer UDP checksum can be zero. So point the machinery at the
> inner headers and ha
From: Mark Rustad
By using GSO for UDP-encapsulated packets, all ixgbe devices can
be directed to generate checksums for the inner headers because
the outer UDP checksum can be zero. So point the machinery at the
inner headers and have the hardware generate the checksum.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rust
