[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> -Original Message- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 6:56 AM > To: Olivier MATZ; Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce > PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:51 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Thomas Monjalon > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and > > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM > > > > Hi, > > > > On 12/04/2014 12:03 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >>>>> 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? > > >>>> > > >>>> Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP > > >>>> version/type, > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. For IPv6 > > >>>> IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4, so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6 > > >>>> /* > packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 > > >> packet, > > >>>> here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. > Right? > > >>>> > > >>>> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ -- IP type: v6; HW > > >>>> checksum: > meaningless > > >>>> > > >>>> 2. For IPv4, > > >>>> My patch: > > >>>> > > >>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--- > ---IP type: v4; HW checksum: Yes > > >>>> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ > > >>>> > --- IP type: v4; HW checksum: No > > >>>> > > >>>> You want: > > >>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* we want hw IP cksum */-- IP > type: v4; HW checksum: Yes > > >>>> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4*/ IP > > >>>> type: v4; HW > checksum: yes or no? > > >>>> > > >>>> driver/HW don't > know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header. > > >>>> > > >>>> HW checksum: > meaningless?? > > >>> > > >>> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself > > >>> doesn't > contain all information. > > >>> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM anyway. > > >> > > >> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information. > > > > > > Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 > > > things: > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */ > > > > For the user, it's clearer to have one information in a flag. > > If you just look at the name of the flag, the natural meaning is 2/, > > else we would need to rename them in: > >PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM > >PKT_TX_IPV4_NO_CKSUM > > > > > If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would > > > happily do > that. > > > Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :) > > > > > >> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future. > > > > > > Could you give an example of such situation? > > > I persona
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 6:20 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin; Olivier MATZ; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
> Hi Helin,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zhang, Helin
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:52 AM
> > To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags
> > > and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> > >
> > > 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 */
> > There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the same
> > bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
> > checksum offload is needed or not.
>
> Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and we are going to
> remove it.
>
> > It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
>
> No one even planned it.
>
> > 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I
> > guess other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
> >
> > So here I got the option 3:
> > PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */
>
> Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?
The comments are different, PKT_TX_IPV4 has different meanings.
Regards,
Helin
>
> Konstantin
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> > Helin
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi, On 12/04/2014 12:03 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > 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? Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type, 1. For IPv6 IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4, so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 >> packet, here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right? PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ -- IP type: v6; HW checksum: meaningless 2. For IPv4, My patch: PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--IP type: v4; HW checksum: Yes PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ --- IP type: v4; HW checksum: No You want: PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* we want hw IP cksum */-- IP type: v4; HW checksum: Yes PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4*/ IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no? driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header. HW checksum: meaningless?? >>> >>> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself >>> doesn't contain all information. >>> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM anyway. >> >> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information. > > Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 things: > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */ For the user, it's clearer to have one information in a flag. If you just look at the name of the flag, the natural meaning is 2/, else we would need to rename them in: PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM PKT_TX_IPV4_NO_CKSUM > If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would happily > do that. > Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :) > >> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future. > > Could you give an example of such situation? > I personally couldn't come up with the case where #2 would have any real > advantage. in solution 2/, PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 so checking PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM is still enough in drivers. In the driver, it is also simpler. With solution 1/: /* check if we need ipcsum */ if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) /* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */ if (flags & (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM|PKT_TX_IPV4)) With solution 2/ /* check if we need ipcsum */ if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) /* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */ if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) I agree it can looks like a detail, but I really think it's important to have the most logical and straightforward api for mbuf, as it's the core of DPDK. Regards, Olivier
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi, On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >>> 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 */ >> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the >> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware >> checksum offload is needed or not. > > Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and we are going to > remove it. > >> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'. > > No one even planned it. > >> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess >> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name. >> >> So here I got the option 3: >> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */ >> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ >> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */ > > Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch? > Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM? I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names. Regards, Olivier
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi,
2014-12-04 10:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Liu, Jijiang
> > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> > > 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?
> >
> > Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP
> > version/type,
> >
> > 1. For IPv6
> > IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4, so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6 /*
> > packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 packet,
> > here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
> >
> > PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ -- IP type: v6; HW
> > checksum: meaningless
> >
> > 2. For IPv4,
> > My patch:
> >
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum
> > */--IP type: v4; HW checksum: Yes
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> > --- IP type: v4; HW checksum: No
> >
> > You want:
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* we want hw IP cksum */-- IP
> > type: v4; HW checksum: Yes
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4*/ IP type: v4;
> > HW checksum: yes or no?
> >
> >driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet
> > with IPv4 header.
> >
> >HW checksum: meaningless??
>
> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't
> contain all information.
> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM anyway.
I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.
It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.
--
Thomas
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi Helin,
> -Original Message-
> From: Zhang, Helin
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:52 AM
> To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce
> > PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> > 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 */
> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
> checksum offload is needed or not.
Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and we are going to
remove it.
> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
No one even planned it.
> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
>
> So here I got the option 3:
> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */
Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?
Konstantin
>
> >
> > 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
>
> Regards,
> Helin
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi Helin,
> -Original Message-
> From: Zhang, Helin
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 2:52 PM
> To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> > 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 */
> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the same bit of
> 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware checksum offload is
> needed or not.
> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
> other
> features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
>
> So here I got the option 3:
> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4 */
In TX side, if just tell driver/HW this is a IPV4 packet , and don't tell
driver/HW whether TX checksum or other offload is required or not , the flag
is senseless, and hardware will not do any offload.
The flag is not used in igb/ixgbe codes, which is just used in i40e codes, and
set this bit(IPv4 packet with no IP checksum offload) in i40e driver.
...
} else if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
*td_cmd |= I40E_TX_DESC_CMD_IIPT_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
>
> Regards,
> Helin
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
> 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 */
There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
checksum offload is needed or not.
It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
So here I got the option 3:
PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM /* we want hw IPv4 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
Regards,
Helin
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi Olivier,
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
> 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?
Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
1. For IPv6
IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4, so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6 /*
packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 packet, here we don't
talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
PKT_TX_IPV6 /* packet is IPv6 */ -- IP type: v6; HW checksum:
meaningless
2. For IPv4,
My patch:
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum
*/--IP type: v4; HW checksum: Yes
PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
--- IP type: v4; HW checksum: No
You want:
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM /* we want hw IP cksum */-- IP type:
v4; HW checksum: Yes
PKT_TX_IPV4 /* packet is IPv4*/ IP type: v4; HW
checksum: yes or no?
driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4
header.
HW checksum: meaningless??
> Regards,
> Olivier
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
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
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Hi Oliver,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:41 AM
> To: Liu, Jijiang; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
>
> Hi Jijiang,
>
> On 12/02/2014 04:06 PM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
> > Replace PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM with PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT in order to indicate
> > a packet is an UDP tunneling packet, and
> introduce 3 TX offload flags for outer IP TX checksum, which are
> PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 and
> PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 respectively;Rework csum forward engine and i40e PMD due to
> these changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu
> > ---
> > app/test-pmd/csumonly.c |9 +++--
> > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c |7 ++-
> > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 11 ++-
> > lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c |6 +++---
> > 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > index d8c080a..9094967 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ process_outer_cksums(void *outer_l3_hdr, uint16_t
> > outer_ethertype,
> > uint64_t ol_flags = 0;
> >
> > if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
> > - ol_flags |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
> > + ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
> >
> > if (outer_ethertype == _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
> > ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
> > @@ -470,7 +470,12 @@ pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
> > { PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> > { PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> > { PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> > - { PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM },
> > + { PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT
> > },
> > + { PKT_TX_IPV4, PKT_TX_IPV4 },
> > + { PKT_TX_IPV6, PKT_TX_IPV6 },
> > + { PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM
> > },
> > + { PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 },
> > + { PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 },
> > { PKT_TX_TCP_SEG, PKT_TX_TCP_SEG },
>
> 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?
> 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.
>
>
> Olivier
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Replace PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM with PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT in order to indicate a
packet is an UDP tunneling packet, and introduce 3 TX offload flags for outer
IP TX checksum, which are PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 and
PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 respectively;Rework csum forward engine and i40e PMD due to
these changes.
Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu
---
app/test-pmd/csumonly.c |9 +++--
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c |7 ++-
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 11 ++-
lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c |6 +++---
4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
index d8c080a..9094967 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ process_outer_cksums(void *outer_l3_hdr, uint16_t
outer_ethertype,
uint64_t ol_flags = 0;
if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
- ol_flags |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
+ ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
if (outer_ethertype == _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
@@ -470,7 +470,12 @@ pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
{ PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
{ PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
{ PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
- { PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM },
+ { PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT
},
+ { PKT_TX_IPV4, PKT_TX_IPV4 },
+ { PKT_TX_IPV6, PKT_TX_IPV6 },
+ { PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM
},
+ { PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 },
+ { PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 },
{ PKT_TX_TCP_SEG, PKT_TX_TCP_SEG },
};
unsigned j;
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
index 87c2963..1b14e02 100644
--- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
+++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
@@ -240,8 +240,13 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask)
case PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM";
case PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM";
case PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST: return "PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST";
- case PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM";
+ case PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT: return "PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT";
case PKT_TX_TCP_SEG: return "PKT_TX_TCP_SEG";
+ case PKT_TX_IPV4: return "PKT_TX_IPV4";
+ case PKT_TX_IPV6: return "PKT_TX_IPV6";
+ case PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM";
+ case PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4";
+ case PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6";
default: return NULL;
}
}
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
index cbadf8e..6eb898f 100644
--- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
+++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ extern "C" {
*/
#define PKT_TX_TCP_SEG (1ULL << 49)
-#define PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM (1ULL << 50) /**< TX checksum of VXLAN computed
by NIC */
+#define PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT (1ULL << 50) /**< TX packet is an UDP tunneling
packet */
#define PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST (1ULL << 51) /**< TX IEEE1588 packet to
timestamp. */
/**
@@ -149,6 +149,15 @@ extern "C" {
#define PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT (1ULL << 57) /**< TX packet is a 802.1q VLAN
packet. */
+/** Outer IP checksum of TX packet, computed by NIC for tunneling packet */
+#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM (1ULL << 58)
+
+/** Packet is outer IPv4 without requiring IP checksum offload for tunneling
packet. */
+#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 (1ULL << 59)
+
+/** Tell the NIC it's an outer IPv6 packet for tunneling packet */
+#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6(1ULL << 60)
+
/* Use final bit of flags to indicate a control mbuf */
#define CTRL_MBUF_FLAG (1ULL << 63) /**< Mbuf contains control data */
diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
index 2d2ef04..078e973 100644
--- a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
+++ b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ i40e_txd_enable_checksum(uint64_t ol_flags,
}
/* VXLAN packet TX checksum offload */
- if (unlikely(ol_flags & PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM)) {
+ if (unlikely(ol_flags & PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT)) {
uint8_t l4tun_len;
l4tun_len = ETHER_VXLAN_HLEN + inner_l2_len;
@@ -1158,8 +1158,8 @@ i40e_calc_context_desc(uint64_t flags)
{
uint64_t mask = 0ULL;
- if (flags | PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM)
- mask |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
+ if (flags | PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT)
+ mask |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588
mask |=
