[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] net/fm10k: implement new Rx checksum flag

[Wang, Xiao W]

Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chen, Jing D
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 5:33 PM
> To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>; olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/5] net/fm10k: implement new Rx checksum flag
> 
> Hi,
> 
> >  uint16_t
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
> > b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
> > index 9ea747e..8c08b44 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
> > @@ -95,8 +95,10 @@ fm10k_desc_to_olflags_v(__m128i descs[4], struct
> rte_mbuf
> > **rx_pkts)
> >  	const __m128i l3l4cksum_flag = _mm_set_epi8(0, 0, 0, 0,
> >  			0, 0, 0, 0,
> >  			0, 0, 0, 0,
> > -			PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD | PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD,
> > -			PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD, PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD, 0);
> > +			(PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD |
> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD) >> 1,
> > +			(PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD |
> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD) >>
> > 1,
> > +			(PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD |
> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD) >>
> > 1,
> > +			(PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD |
> > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD) >> 1);
> 
> Can we define a macro, like "#define RTE_CKSUM_SHIFT 1" to avoid numeric?

Yes, I'll add a macro for this, but since this shift operation isn't commonly used
by other pmds (igb and i40e don't support cksum offload in vector Rx, ixgbe cannot
do this shift due to VLAN offload), I will make it a local macro definition.

> 
> >
> >  	const __m128i rxe_flag = _mm_set_epi8(0, 0, 0, 0,
> >  			0, 0, 0, 0,
> > @@ -139,6 +141,7 @@ fm10k_desc_to_olflags_v(__m128i descs[4], struct
> > rte_mbuf **rx_pkts)
> >  	/* Process L4/L3 checksum error flags */
> >  	cksumflag = _mm_srli_epi16(cksumflag, L3L4EFLAG_SHIFT);
> >  	cksumflag = _mm_shuffle_epi8(l3l4cksum_flag, cksumflag);
> > +	cksumflag = _mm_slli_epi16(cksumflag, 1);
> >  	vtag1 = _mm_or_si128(cksumflag, vtag1);
> >
> >  	vol.dword = _mm_cvtsi128_si64(vtag1);
> > --
> > 1.9.3
> 
> Besides that, just realize we should remove "hw_ip_checksum" check in func
> fm10k_rx_vec_condition_check() since we already support it.
> Can you help to make the change?

Sure, will remove it in V2.

Thanks for the comments,
Xiao