On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:27:27AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > No. What I'm saying is that XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY should be > > equivalent to skb's CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY with csum_level = 0. > > I'm well aware that some drivers are trying to be smart and put csum_level=1. > > There is no use case for it in XDP. > > "But our HW supports it so XDP prog should read it" is the reason NOT > > to expose it to bpf in generic api. > > > > Either we're doing per-driver kfuncs and no common infra or common kfunc > > that covers 99% of the drivers. Which is CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY && csum_level = 0 > > > > It's not acceptable to present a generic api to xdp prog with multi level > > csum that only works on a specific HW. Next thing there will be new flags > > and MAX_CSUM_LEVEL in XDP features. > > Pretending to be generic while being HW specific is the worst interface. > > Ok. Agreed that without it we still cover 99% of the use cases. Fine to drop. Sorry for the late response. Thanks everyone for the feedback, will drop the checksum level concept from the design.
