Hi Sugesh
On 07/06/2016 02:52 PM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
> Just to confirm , is this rx checksum patch already submitted in the DPDK ML?
> We would like to use these flags to speed up the tunneling in OVS.
No it is not submitted yet.
I plan to send it in the coming days, it
Olivier Matz' ; Ananyev, Konstantin
> ; Stephen Hemminger
>
> Cc: Yuanhan Liu ; dev at dpdk.org; Richardson,
> Bruce ; Adrien Mazarguil
> ; Tan, Jianfeng
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
>
>
>
> Regards
> _Sugesh
>
> > -Original Me
Adrien Mazarguil
> ; Tan, Jianfeng
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
> >>> I guess the IP checksum also important as L4. In some cases, UDP
> >>> checksum is zero and no need t
Hi,
On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
>>> I guess the IP checksum also important as L4. In some cases, UDP
>>> checksum is zero and no need to validate it. But Ip checksum is
>>> present on all the packets and that must be validated all the time.
>>> At higher packet rate, the ip
Adrien Mazarguil
> ; Tan, Jianfeng
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06/02/2016 09:42 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
> >>>> Do you also suggest to drop IP checksum flags?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > IP chec
Hi,
On 06/02/2016 09:42 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
Do you also suggest to drop IP checksum flags?
>>> > >
>>> > > IP checksum offload is mostly useless. If application needs to look at
>>> > > IP, it can do whole checksum in very few instructions, the whole
>>> > > header is in the same
; Olivier MATZ
>
> Cc: Yuanhan Liu ; dev at dpdk.org; Richardson,
> Bruce ; Adrien Mazarguil
> ; Tan, Jianfeng
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkpl
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:03 PM
> To: Olivier MATZ
> Cc: Yuanhan Liu; dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce;
> Adrien Mazarguil; Tan, Jianfeng
> Subject:
Hi Stephen,
On 05/31/2016 10:28 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:11:59 +0200
> Olivier MATZ wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 05/31/2016 10:09 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE: the L4 checksum is not
On 05/31/2016 10:09 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
>> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE: the L4 checksum is not correct in the packet
>> data, but the integrity of the L4 header is verified.
>> -> the application can process the packet but must not
Hi,
On 05/31/2016 12:08 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:43:29AM +0800, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>> Why not take care of PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD? Is it too easy for sw to handle?
>
> I thought PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD was to be modified in a similar fashion, but
> since you raise the
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to add the support for offloads in virtio-net pmd.
Good to know, and thanks!
> It appears that the current rx flags in mbuf are not sufficient to
> describe the state of a packet received from a virtual driver.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:58:57 +0200
Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 05/31/2016 10:28 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:11:59 +0200
> > Olivier MATZ wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/31/2016 10:09 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM
On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:11:59 +0200
Olivier MATZ wrote:
>
>
> On 05/31/2016 10:09 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE: the L4 checksum is not correct in the packet
> >> data, but the integrity of the L4 header is
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:43:29AM +0800, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
>
> On 5/30/2016 11:26 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm planning to add the support for offloads in virtio-net pmd.
> >It appears that the current rx flags in mbuf are not sufficient to
> >describe the state
Hi Oliver,
On 5/30/2016 11:26 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to add the support for offloads in virtio-net pmd.
> It appears that the current rx flags in mbuf are not sufficient to
> describe the state of a packet received from a virtual driver.
> I think we need a way to say
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to add the support for offloads in virtio-net pmd.
> It appears that the current rx flags in mbuf are not sufficient to
> describe the state of a packet received from a virtual driver.
> I think we need a way to
Hi,
I'm planning to add the support for offloads in virtio-net pmd.
It appears that the current rx flags in mbuf are not sufficient to
describe the state of a packet received from a virtual driver.
I think we need a way to say "the checksum in the packet data is
not calculated, but the integrity
18 matches
Mail list logo
