Hi Konstantin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 12:16 > To: Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > > Hi > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 18:24 > > > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > > > Cc: Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:02 PM > > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> > > > > Cc: Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > > > > > > > 2016-10-27 15:52, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a major new function in the API and I still have some > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-10-26 14:56, Tomasz Kulasek: > > > > > > > --- a/config/common_base > > > > > > > +++ b/config/common_base > > > > > > > +CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_TX_PREP=y > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot enable it until it is implemented in every drivers. > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why? > > > > > If tx_pkt_prep == NULL, then rte_eth_tx_prep() would just act as > noop. > > > > > Right now it is not mandatory for the PMD to implement it. > > > > > > > > If it is not implemented, the application must do the preparation > > > > by > > > itself. > > > > From patch 6: > > > > " > > > > Removed pseudo header calculation for udp/tcp/tso packets from > > > > application and used Tx preparation API for packet preparation and > > > > verification. > > > > " > > > > So how does it behave with other drivers? > > > > > > Hmm so it seems that we broke testpmd csumonly mode for non-intel > > > drivers.. > > > My bad, missed that part completely. > > > Yes, then I suppose for now we'll need to support both (with and > > > without) code paths for testpmd. > > > Probably a new fwd mode or just extra parameter for the existing one? > > > Any other suggestions? > > > > > > > I had sent txprep engine in v2 > > (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15775/), but I'm opened on the > suggestions. If you like it I can resent it in place of csumonly > modification. > > I still not sure it is worth to have another version of csum... > Can we introduce a new global variable in testpmd and a new command: > testpmd> csum tx_prep > or so? > Looking at current testpmd patch, I suppose the changes will be minimal. > What do you think? > Konstantin >
This is not a problem. Tomasz