Hi Xiao, On 08/25/2016 07:48 PM, Xiao Wang wrote: > Add CKSUM_GOOD flag to distinguish a good checksum from an unknown one. > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang at intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > index 8a306b0..d2dc82a 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > @@ -1345,7 +1345,9 @@ rx_desc_error_to_pkt_flags(uint32_t rx_status) > * Bit 30: L4I, L4I integrity error > */ > static uint64_t error_to_pkt_flags_map[4] = { > - 0, PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD, PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD, > + PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD | PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD, > + PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD | PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD, > + PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD | PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD, > PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD | PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD > }; > pkt_flags = error_to_pkt_flags_map[(rx_status >> >
I think this would somehow conflict with the patch adding the support of Rx checksum offload in vector receive function: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/14630/ Depending on which one is pushed first, the second one would need to be reworked. Olivier