[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dpdk-dev
Subject:    [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework
From:       olivier.matz () 6wind ! com (Olivier MATZ)
Date:       2014-11-28 9:26:55
Message-ID: 54783FDF.4090006 () 6wind ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Konstantin,

On 11/27/2014 04:29 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > As I suggested in the TSO thread, I think the following semantics
> > is easier to understand for the user:
> > 
> > - PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM: tell the NIC to compute IP cksum
> > 
> > - PKT_TX_IPV4: tell the NIC it's an IPv4 packet. Required for L4
> > checksum offload or TSO.
> > 
> > - PKT_TX_IPV6: tell the NIC it's an IPv6 packet. Required for L4
> > checksum offload or TSO.
> > 
> > I think it won't make a big difference in the FVL driver.
> 
> No, no big difference here, but I still think it will be a bit cleaner if all 3 \
> flags would be nutually exclusive. In fact,  we can unite all 3 of them them into 2 \
> bits,    same as we doing for L4 checksum flags.

In case of TSO, you need to set the PKT_TX_IPV4 flag.
But as suggested by Yong Wang from Vmware [1], the vmxnet3 driver could
support TSO without offloading IP checksum, so I think it's better to
have flags for (is_ipv4 or is_ipv6), and another one to ask the
ip_checksum.


> You mean a new DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_* value, right?
> Something like:  DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TUNNEL?
> And make i40e_dev_info_get() to return it?
> Yes, forgot about it, sounds like a proper thing to do. 

Yes. I've seen that Jijiang is planning to add it in a future bug fix
patch. That's fine to me.


[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007775.html

Regards,
Olivier


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]