From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AE51B209 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:27:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id b189so6381660wmd.4 for ; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 05:27:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=HpGxL/0AnMHICpEv8kskt5izEFUvEqZ8b8KNb0k2grs=; b=puVrSboVHNMsaYhWwRPqjOJe8QLqBzjtT3MyZ6PWUSTd5+1RIyNOCHlXfI1jYApqMS rsH9+TN/M52QnmottAuaw2wcJoV2bJfkK5cPRcPlepC/aFvmMHlI1X/hxXoN3MrcT4Te 4vOMA64W5VN7wGwzeSNAN5SQAZY/WFAgLkKZMVFd0s3R/cBd9/JCb/FAYNUFsIthGjy2 m7vtDDmeVzVJBk596/hoqNVozgrtNOgWykgo2+qMznvn6Tuekp/6A3zwknGFUH9ZWf2B gm345RZPrplgH4S8Xen8LEqZif54AJe5Si4BMKJEeVRQMTQtRw1chU0mY3ZwTP0eyrUY zobQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=HpGxL/0AnMHICpEv8kskt5izEFUvEqZ8b8KNb0k2grs=; b=GgXux2mR/whjS0IJA1RlEy26BbCrVibYn51b+LG+3xVMv0FjeESaoaFSNgDmvUGdvC QxetrN0XCBbTobA7x7Z4IVGPY/kuybR+JfWJaJ/g9HJD1vOCxlZQwvZrMMTuG1/la6ii PzHEGjkUn7mfp54EQU/XO0nncDyAAAw2efTjyD+NcEu7HK5S6BfTLUWz7xJM7zl5rJUG sX1xMIMaaZDmOQ4PFPv5dY7Z3UbSYMTicNwAtVhRdZTvmbqatQ4TNE5UXPfw14Y8BZwO KXr8StBFP/qat6Kmd0xoLBKE+UaS3iJsws+D/RHmz7K8WmlqZcZafOxyOO2gE5PbkkLO bvGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhYcIW60D1obrBiG0u/n3Ive11z5BoqlWXzzxd2zj0xYnPtG+4o Gi5OPWli6dLUfe0RLxlhTEu2GQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDRgcw8fzzr9FuCR0qcngfB1bx8bCpyCCE3yaqG9ajzJoCN00kBkxutfAEuavLg6cU++4nrQg== X-Received: by 10.28.58.136 with SMTP id h130mr9532629wma.56.1506947268736; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 05:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b47sm11674257wra.73.2017.10.02.05.27.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Oct 2017 05:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:27:37 +0200 From: Adrien Mazarguil To: Sean Harte Cc: "Xing, Beilei" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Chilikin, Andrey" , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20171002122737.GK3871@6wind.com> References: <1506565054-67690-1-git-send-email-beilei.xing@intel.com> <1506662342-18966-1-git-send-email-beilei.xing@intel.com> <1506662342-18966-5-git-send-email-beilei.xing@intel.com> <94479800C636CB44BD422CB454846E0132038E26@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/8] ethdev: add GTP items to support flow API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 12:27:49 -0000 On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:29:55AM +0100, Sean Harte wrote: > On 29 September 2017 at 09:54, Xing, Beilei wrote: > >> > /** > >> > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GTP. > >> > + * > >> > + * Matches a GTPv1 header. > >> > + */ > >> > +struct rte_flow_item_gtp { > >> > + /** > >> > + * Version (3b), protocol type (1b), reserved (1b), > >> > + * Extension header flag (1b), > >> > + * Sequence number flag (1b), > >> > + * N-PDU number flag (1b). > >> > + */ > >> > + uint8_t v_pt_rsv_flags; > >> > + uint8_t msg_type; /**< Message type. */ > >> > + rte_be16_t msg_len; /**< Message length. */ > >> > + rte_be32_t teid; /**< Tunnel endpoint identifier. */ }; > >> > >> In future, you might add support for GTPv2 (which is used since LTE). > >> Maybe this structure should have v1 in its name to avoid confusion? > > > > I considered it before. But I think we can modify it when we support GTPv2 in future, and keep concise 'GTP' currently:) since I have described it matches v1 header. > > > > You could rename v_pt_rsv_flags to version_flags to avoid some future > code changes to support GTPv2. There's still the issue that not all > GTPv2 messages have a TEID though. Although they have the same size, the header of these two protocols obviously differs. My suggestion would be to go with a separate GTPv2 pattern item using its own dedicated structure instead. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND