From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:26:36 +0100
Message-ID: <3517413.XL3bTbAyaC@xps13>
References: <1477486575-25148-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <D4643DF5.B8241%Harish.Patil@cavium.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0E2444@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Harish Patil <harish.patil@qlogic.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
 Stephen Hurd <stephen.hurd@broadcom.com>, Jan Medala <jan@semihalf.com>,
 Jakub Palider <jpa@semihalf.com>, John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>,
 Rasesh Mody <rasesh.mody@qlogic.com>, "Jacob, Jerin" <Jerin.Jacob@cavium.com>,
 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, Yong Wang <yongwang@vmware.com>,
 "Kulasek, TomaszX" <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>, olivier.matz@6wind.com
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27EF3989
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:26:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t79so225739907wmt.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F0E2444@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > >Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > >"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > >or
> > >"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this =
mode"
> > >
> >=20
> > qede PMD doesn=E2=80=99t currently support TSO yet, it only support=
s Tx TCP/UDP/IP
> > csum offloads.
> > So Tx preparation isn=E2=80=99t applicable. So as of now -
> > "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
>=20
> Thanks for the answer.
> Though please note that it not only for TSO.

Oh yes, sorry, my wording was incorrect.
We need to know if any checksum preparation is needed prior
offloading its final computation to the hardware or driver.
So the question applies to TSO and simple checksum offload.

We are still waiting answers for
=09bnxt, cxgbe, ena, nfp, thunderx, virtio and vmxnet3.

> This is for any TX offload for which the upper layer SW would have
> to modify the contents of the packet.
> Though as I can see for qede neither PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM or PKT_TX_TCP_CK=
SUM
> exhibits any extra requirements for the user.
> Is that correct?