Hi Konstantin, On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not >> appropriate. > > Sorry, didn't get you here. > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 > be mutually exclusive or not?
Yes >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may >> have misunderstood: >> >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM, > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits. > Something like: > #define PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM (1 << X) > #define PKT_TX_IPV6 (2 << X) > #define PKT_TX_IPV4 (3 << X) > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits. > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do: > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) { > case TX_IPV4: > ... > break; > case TX_IPV6: > ... > break; > case TX_IP_CKSUM: > ... > break; > }" > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility. > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it. ok, so we are back between: 1/ (Jijiang's patch) PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */ PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive and 2/ PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* we want hw IP cksum */ PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */ with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion? Regards, Olivier
