From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: orika@nvidia.com, ferruh.yigit@amd.com,
andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru, Gavin Li <gavinl@nvidia.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jiaweiw@nvidia.com, jerinj@marvell.com,
bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru,
"Ajit Khaparde" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Jie Hai" <haijie1@huawei.com>, "Long Li" <longli@microsoft.com>,
"Dariusz Sosnowski" <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>,
"Hemant Agrawal" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"Maxime Coquelin" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 1/1] net: extend VXLAN header to support more extensions
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:51:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16740437.geO5KgaWL5@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240130112520.1971315-2-gavinl@nvidia.com>
30/01/2024 12:25, Gavin Li:
> In this patch, all the VXLAN extension header will be merged with VXLAN as
> union if the overlapped field has different format among protocols. The
> existing VXLAN-GPE will be marked as deprecated and new extensions of
> VXLAN should be added to VXLAN instead of a new RTE item.
So VXLAN GPE, GBP, and original ones will all use the same struct.
Asking confirmation to other reviewers:
- do we want to deprecate specific VXLAN GPE?
- do we want to plan for VXLAN GPE removal?
[...]
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +* ethdev: The flow item ``RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE`` is replaced with ``RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN``.
> + The item ``RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE``, the struct ``rte_flow_item_vxlan_gpe``, its mask ``rte_flow_item_vxlan_gpe_mask``,
> + and the header struct ``rte_vxlan_gpe_hdr`` with the macro ``RTE_ETHER_VXLAN_GPE_HLEN``
> + will be removed in DPDK 25.11.
[...]
> @@ -38,8 +38,65 @@ struct rte_vxlan_hdr {
> rte_be32_t vx_vni; /**< VNI (24) + Reserved (8). */
> };
> struct {
> - uint8_t flags; /**< Should be 8 (I flag). */
> - uint8_t rsvd0[3]; /**< Reserved. */
> + union {
> + uint8_t flags; /**< Should be 8 (I flag). */
> + /* Flag bits defined by GPE */
> + struct {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t flag_o:1,
> + flag_b:1,
> + flag_p:1,
> + flag_i_gpe:1,
> + flag_ver:2,
> + rsvd_gpe:2;
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd_gpe:2,
> + flag_ver:2,
> + flag_i_gpe:1,
> + flag_p:1,
> + flag_b:1,
> + flag_o:1;
> +#endif
> + };
> + /* Flag bits defined by GBP */
> + struct {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd_gbp1:3,
> + flag_i_gbp:1,
> + rsvd_gbp2:3,
> + flag_g:1;
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t flag_g:1,
> + rsvd_gbp1:3,
> + flag_i_gbp:1,
> + rsvd_gbp2:3;
> +#endif
> + };
> + };
> + union {
> + uint8_t rsvd0[3]; /**< Reserved. */
> + /* Overlap with rte_vxlan_gpe_hdr which is deprecated.*/
> + struct {
> + uint8_t rsvd0_gpe[2]; /**< Reserved. */
> + uint8_t proto; /**< Next protocol. */
> + };
> + struct {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd0_gbp1:3,
> + policy_applied:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp2:2,
> + dont_learn:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp3:1;
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd0_gbp1:1,
> + dont_learn:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp2:2,
> + policy_applied:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp3:3;
> +#endif
> + uint16_t policy_id;
> + };
> + };
> uint8_t vni[3]; /**< VXLAN identifier. */
> uint8_t rsvd1; /**< Reserved. */
> };
Naming looks OK.
Any different opinion?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-06 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-30 11:25 [RFC V1 0/1] " Gavin Li
2024-01-30 11:25 ` [RFC V1 1/1] " Gavin Li
2024-02-06 22:51 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2024-02-07 4:49 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-02-08 23:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-09 10:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-09 12:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-09 13:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-09 14:58 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-09 15:32 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-09 15:58 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-19 3:16 ` Gavin Li
2024-02-19 3:44 ` Gavin Li
2024-02-19 4:03 ` Gavin Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=16740437.geO5KgaWL5@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dsosnowski@nvidia.com \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=gavinl@nvidia.com \
--cc=haijie1@huawei.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jiaweiw@nvidia.com \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=longli@microsoft.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=orika@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).