[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: introduce generic IP/UDP tunnel checksum and TSO

[Xueming(Steven) Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:43 AM
> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Yongseok Koh
> <yskoh at mellanox.com>; Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>;
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: introduce generic IP/UDP tunnel checksum and TSO
> 
> 08/04/2018 14:32, Xueming Li:
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -210,6 +210,8 @@ extern "C" {
> >  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_GENEVE  (0x4ULL << 45)  /**< TX packet with
> > MPLS-in-UDP RFC 7510 header. */  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MPLSINUDP
> > (0x5ULL << 45)
> > +#define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_IP (0xDULL << 45) /**< Tx IP tunneled packet.
> > +*/ #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_UDP (0xEULL << 45) /**< Tx UDP tunneled
> > +packet. */
> 
> I think you need to explain in details, in the comments, what we can expect when using these flags.
> Please write the doxygen comment on the lines before the flag.

Got it.

> 
> Any reason for using 0xD and 0xE values?
> Because they are more generic than the first ones?

Yes, do you think it better to continue with previous ones?

> 
> >  /* add new TX TUNNEL type here */
> >  #define PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MASK    (0xFULL << 45)
> 
>