PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD) != 0);
> rx_bad_l4_csum += (uint16_t) ((pkt_ol_flags &
> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD) != 0);
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of jigsaw
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 3:11 AM
> To: Venkates
riginal Message-
From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of jigsaw
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 3:11 AM
To: Venkatesan, Venky
Cc: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Request for comments on ixgbe TSO support
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for showing a bigger picture.
GSO is quite b
--
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:23 AM
> To: jigsaw
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Request for comments on ixgbe TSO support
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:54:31 +0300
> jigs
Hi Stephen,
>>This will work for local generated packets but overlapping existing field
>>won't work well for forwarding.
So adding a new mss field in mbuf could be the way out? or I
misunderstand something.
>> What we want to be able to do is to take offload (jumbo) packets in with
>> from vi
This patch is a draft of TSO on 82599. That is, it is not expected to be
accepted as is.
The problem is where to put the mss field. In this patch, the mss is put in
the union of hash in rte_pktmbuf. It is not the best place, but it is quite
convenient, since hash is not used in TX procedure.
The id
lf Of Stephen Hemminger
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:23 AM
To: jigsaw
Cc: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Request for comments on ixgbe TSO support
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:54:31 +0300
jigsaw wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
> >>This will work for local generated
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:10:33 +0300
jigsaw wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for showing a bigger picture.
>
> GSO is quite big implementation, that I think it won't be easily
> ported to DPDK. The mbuf needs to be equipped with many fields from
> skb to be able to deal with GSO.
> Do you have the
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:54:31 +0300
jigsaw wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
> >>This will work for local generated packets but overlapping existing field
> >>won't work well for forwarding.
> So adding a new mss field in mbuf could be the way out? or I
> misunderstand something.
>
> >> What we want to
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:06:52 +0300
Qinglai Xiao wrote:
> This patch is a draft of TSO on 82599. That is, it is not expected to be
> accepted as is.
> The problem is where to put the mss field. In this patch, the mss is put in
> the union of hash in rte_pktmbuf. It is not the best place, but it is
9 matches
Mail list logo
