[dpdk-dev] mbuf offload flags
Thomas Monjalon
thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
Thu Jul 16 18:11:57 CEST 2015
2015-07-16 15:50, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > Helin,
> >
> > In commit http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=c22265f6fd4cdc, some
> > fake flags were added:
> >
> > #define PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD (0ULL << 0) /**< External IP header
> > checksum error. */
> > #define PKT_RX_OVERSIZE (0ULL << 0) /**< Num of desc of an RX pkt
> > oversize. */
> > #define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0) /**< Header buffer overflow.
> > */
> > #define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< Hardware processing error.
> > */
> > #define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< MAC error. */
> >
> > Can we remove them?
>
> Yes, I agree with you, except PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
It is 0. Removing it shouldn't hurt.
> > In a tunnel case, what means PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD and
> > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD?
> > Inner or outer?
> > The API comment must be updated.
>
> Currently PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD means outer IP checksum error.
> We may need to re-think it?
> PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD for outer for tunnel case, and add a new one for inner IP checksum error case?
Yes.
Maybe that having CKSUM_OK would be better to be sure it has been checked.
> For L4, do we need both outer and inner for tunnel case? One might be enough.
> We can add one more for L4 checksum error, when it is really needed. For now, I don't see any case.
I don't know.
More information about the dev
mailing list