From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F1114A4@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1485258650-86193-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <1486179375-133509-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <1486179375-133509-4-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F110FFC@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F111017@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD4FA3@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: "Wu, Jingjing" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A182B84 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:11:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD4FA3@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Wu, Jingjing > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 8:54 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supporte= d Tx flags >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:11 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Wu, Jingjing > > ; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of suppor= ted > > Tx flags > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, > > > Konstantin > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 11:59 AM > > > To: Wu, Jingjing ; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of > > > supported Tx flags > > > > > > Hi Jingjing, > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wu, Jingjing > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 3:36 AM > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > > Cc: Wu, Jingjing ; Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported Tx flag= s > > > > > > > > Add missed flags to bitmask of all supported packet Tx flags. > > > > > > > > CC: konstantin.ananyev@intel.com > > > > Fixes: 7829b8d52be0 ("net/ixgbe: add Tx preparation") > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingjing Wu > > > > --- > > > > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c index 36f1c02..8454581 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c > > > > @@ -81,13 +81,28 @@ > > > > #include "ixgbe_rxtx.h" > > > > > > > > /* Bit Mask to indicate what bits required for building TX context > > > > */ > > > > +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588 > > > > #define IXGBE_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \ > > > > PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \ > > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \ > > > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \ > > > > PKT_TX_L4_MASK | \ > > > > + PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST | \ > > > > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | \ > > > > PKT_TX_MACSEC | \ > > > > - PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM | \ > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4) > > > > +#else > > > > +#define IXGBE_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \ > > > > + PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \ > > > > + PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \ > > > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \ > > > > > > Wonder why ixgbe doesn't have PKT_TX_IPV6? > > > > Same question for e1000 and fm10k. > > Also if you decided to go that way, you'll probably need to update > > TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for enic and vmxnet3. > > That's why I still think it would be much less hassle not to include th= ese flags > > (PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6) into TX_OFFLOAD_MASK at all. > > Konstantin > > > > > Thanks for pointing that. PKT_TX_IPV6 is missed. > About whether include these flags (PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6) into TX_= OFFLOAD_MASK, I think they should be > Included. Think about one NIC may support IPV4 L4 checksum offload, but n= ot support IPV6? Even I don't know who it is. >=20 I don't think such combination is possible now anyway. But ok, if your preference is it to do more work and add (PKT_TX_IPV4 | PKT= _TX_IPV6) into all required places, I wouldn't argue. BTW, as a side notice, what will be really good is to have a function that = would take tx_offload_capabilities as an input and return tx_offload_mask. That would remove necessity to update/support TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for each PMD, and hopefully will allow to avoid confusion for PMD writers.=20 Though that's probably subject of another patch. Konstantin =20