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.



Regards
_Sugesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Chandran, Sugesh
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:16 PM
To: 'Olivier Matz' <redacted>; Ananyev, Konstantin
[off-list ref]; Stephen Hemminger
[off-list ref]
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <redacted>; dev@dpdk.org; Richardson,
Bruce [off-list ref]; Adrien Mazarguil
[off-list ref]; Tan, Jianfeng [off-list ref]
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags



Regards
_Sugesh

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:02 PM
To: Chandran, Sugesh <redacted>; Ananyev, Konstantin
[off-list ref]; Stephen Hemminger
[off-list ref]
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <redacted>; dev@dpdk.org;
Richardson, Bruce [off-list ref]; Adrien Mazarguil
[off-list ref]; Tan, Jianfeng [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags

Hi,

On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

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 checksum offload can offer slight
performance

improvement. What do you think??

quoted

Agree, in some situations (and this is even more true with packet
types / smartnics), the application could process without accessing
the packet data if we keep the IP cksum flags.

[Sugesh] True, If that's the case, Will you considering to implement
IP checksum flags as well along with L4?
As you said , this will be useful when we offload packet lookup
itself into the NICs(May be when using Flow director) ?

Yes, I plan to implement the same rx status flags (good, bad, unknown,
none) for rx IP checksum too.

[Sugesh] That's great!, Thank you Olivier.

quoted

Regards,
Olivier