[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine
olivier.matz at 6wind.com
Wed Nov 26 15:55:16 CET 2014
On 11/26/2014 01:25 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> By the way (this is probably off-topic), but I'm wondering if the TX
>> flags should have the same values than the RX flags:
>> #define PKT_TX_IPV4 PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR
>> #define PKT_TX_IPV6 PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR
> Thought about that too.
> From one side, it is a bit out of our concept: separate RX and TX falgs.
> From other side, it allows us to save 2 bits in the ol_flags.
> Don't have any strong opinion here.
> What do you think?
I have no strong opinion too, but I have a preference for 2 different
bit values for these flags:
- as you say, it's matches the concept (RX and TX flags are separated)
- 64 bits is a lot, we have some time before there is no more available
bit... and I hope we it will never occur because it would become
complex for an application to handle them all
- it will avoid to send a packet with a bad info:
- we receive a Ether/IP6/IP4/L4/data packet
- the driver sets PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR
- the stack decapsulates IP6
- the stack sends the packet, it has the PKT_TX_IPV6 flag but it's an
This is not a real problem as the flag will not be used by the
driver/hardware (it's only mandatory for hw cksum / tso), but
it can be confusing.
More information about the dev