> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 11:22 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Kulasek, TomaszX > <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/6] ethdev: add Tx preparation > > 2016-10-28 10:15, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > > 2016-10-27 15:52, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > 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? > > No please no! > The problem is not in testpmd. > The problem is in every applications. > Should we prepare the checksums or let tx_prep do it?
Not sure, I understood you... Right now we don't' change other apps. They would work as before. If people would like to start to use tx_prep in their apps - they are free to do that. If they like to keep doing that manually - that's fine too. >From other side we need an ability to test (and demonstrate) that new >functionality. So we do need changes in testpmd. Konstantin > The result will depend of the driver used.