Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] virtio-net: update description for VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM.

[Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com>]

å 2023/12/11 äå3:26, Jason Wang åé:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:18âAM Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> > å 2023/12/10 äå1:39, Yuri Benditovich åé:
> > > If somebody explains the problem that this patch addresses it will be very,
> > > _very_ helpful.
> > > We _were_ sure that if the host suggests  VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM and the
> > > driver acks it - they both can do _more_ than without this feature.
> > > Specifically the driver claims that it is able to deal with additional
> > > types of incoming packets and such a way the device is able to provide
> > > _more_ types of incoming packets than if this feature is not acked..
> > Hi Yuir.
> >
> > Why do you think this patch will change that..?
> > What types of packets a driver or device can handle will *not change*
> > with this patch.
> Well, I think the confusion came from you wanting to modify the
> definition of VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM.

As we discussed, modifications to the GUEST_CSUM definition will be 
removed in the next version.

> As discussed, there's no issue with the current definition:
>
> When VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM is negotiated and DATA_VALID is set, the
> checksum is still partial.

I'm confused about this sentence.

DATA_VALID will not appear in a packet together with a partial checksum.

I think what you are saying is that partial checksum means 
CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.

Thanks!

> Or did you see any?
>
> Thanks