[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMho=LsCOsdbgKHJjTiYB55UR9ZnnZkMAqpM=kH=VGsnrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:38:32 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Preethi Banala <preethi.banala@...el.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"jogreene@...hat.com" <jogreene@...hat.com>,
Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/4] i40e/i40evf: Add capability exchange for outer checksum
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> From: Preethi Banala <preethi.banala@...el.com>
>
> This patch adds a capability negotiation between VF and PF using ENCAP/
> ENCAP_CSUM offload flags in order for the VF to support outer checksum
> and TSO offloads for encapsulated packets.
[...]
-#define I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_OFFLOAD_ 0X00100000
+#define I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_OFFLOAD_ENCAP 0X00100000
+#define I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_OFFLOAD_ENCAP_CSUM 0X00200000
what happens when one of the PF or VF doesn't have this hunk, e.g one
assumes value X and one assumes value Y for ENCAP_CSUM
Powered by blists - more mailing lists