> On Fri, 28 May 2021 14:18:33 -0700 Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Introduce flag field in xdp_buff and xdp_frame data structure in order > > > to report xdp_buffer metadata. For the moment just hw checksum hints > > > are defined but flags field will be reused for xdp multi-buffer > > > For the moment just CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is supported. > > > CHECKSUM_COMPLETE will need to set csum value in metada space. > > > > > Lorenzo, > > > > This isn't sufficient for the checksum-unnecessary interface, we'd > > also need ability to set csum_level for cases the device validated > > more than one checksum. > > > > IMO, we shouldn't support CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY for new uses like this. > > For years now, the Linux community has been pleading with vendors to > > provide CHECKSUM_COMPLETE which is far more useful and robust than > > CHECSUM_UNNECESSARY, and yet some still haven't got with the program > > even though we see more and more instances where CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY > > doesn't even work at all (e.g. cases with SRv6, new encaps device > > doesn't understand). I believe it's time to take a stand! :-) > > I must agree. Not supporting CHECKSUM_COMPLETE seems like a step back. I completely agree on it and I want add support for CHECKSUM_COMPLETE as soon as we decide what is the best way to store csum value (xdp_metadata?). At the same time this preliminary series wants to add support just for CHECSUM_UNNECESSARY. Moreover the flags field in xdp_buff/xdp_frame will be reused for xdp multi-buff work. Regards, Lorenzo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
