On 11/11/2022 9:04 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
@@ -459,11 +486,16 @@ tx_only_begin(portid_t pi)
{
uint16_t pkt_hdr_len, pkt_data_len;
int dynf;
- uint8_t ip_proto = IPPROTO_UDP;
+ uint8_t ip_proto;
pkt_hdr_len = (uint16_t)(sizeof(struct rte_ether_hdr) +
sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr));
+
+ ip_proto = txonly_tso_segsz > 0 ? IPPROTO_TCP : IPPROTO_UDP;
Instead of detecting protocol via txonly_tso_segsz, what about
introducing '--tx-tcp' and use it?
I put some more comment to have tcp specific parameters in prev version
of the patch.
As far as I understand, '--tx-udp'/'--tx-tcp' parameters are optional,
that is why to detect protocol we can:
a) Use UDP by default if '--tx-udp'/'--tx-tcp' not provided
b) Have another argument to set protocol explicitly, something like
'--tx-proto='. In this case it is better to have '--tx-udp'/'--tx-tcp'
parameter as '--tx-l4-port', because otherwise protocol information will
be duplicated (need to check against '--tx-proto=txp --tx-udp' etc..).
I think both of us think it is not good idea to change existing
parameter name, that is why I prefer option a) above, what do you think?
switch (ip_proto) {
+ case IPPROTO_TCP:
+ pkt_hdr_len += sizeof(struct rte_tcp_hdr);
+ break;
case IPPROTO_UDP:
pkt_hdr_len += sizeof(struct rte_udp_hdr);
break;
