From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f178.google.com (mail-wr0-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B2B7CEC for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:06:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f178.google.com with SMTP id o15-v6so5761057wro.11 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:06:05 -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:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=0B2lRv2RtZ9VNU2R4d94w9wUNrmezygdSIsi28La0jE=; b=uXgjl6oyYAm7cdUbm+0QhfD6Bj9rGoIqxrEHLdr4bv1g1azQc8O/l7sUBLkvaFoZPD OddlkpjzCBAnsCzSdpCFzDZqkXhhsmiWbOsQZRV2G7hBzhabUGRLbMbMV4sO41v3OzQY gdrxmoE0I0/N6AGzap6awfAt1C5o5TyOZjtK9VPwfvMLjbGmdEGAWMpb8POqlCOUW13P wgdulQFTmgSkTMDoMreE2tqKXKS+N1P36F3r4NlmMuNDRdaNhWSntX+pqS8+oQfHJLm8 y28bPHMPPON6jo539G3Er0HcwRuysbegVhkAPbU83p6IjjWcjUSPkddSE2XrXxQ8j6sr Wu4Q== 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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=0B2lRv2RtZ9VNU2R4d94w9wUNrmezygdSIsi28La0jE=; b=Mc/RP2CESyXSwVFRjmrwLUV2cuDaK5bxdOLAQuTf/WvsxyLHGp7WTmAaH162WdK1JT jBvEYm+GbxvkT0zUTLbVBLc0YITn/BQ/dwTDw04pT/aZ9kFjE+AhxanKtwbQ8ryoqq35 YEyv0fSXyYNWZ0bAOdrk1F9GB5Xul69a3MgBjmwZ8jvNRGDtXk7ewZKaAZrgC0slgPnv DZJNdME150uHOEGn+ExI7baNbaBgccQ6Y/32vOVSvdgarOfc9FvwU1Z6pASxeUOk/BEa YueBrs/thSorn5wYtQzRYaJTa2hnlu5aX4xh+RcsWbrGhUG1kOkzsSgz8K/WPpAThOTa 0+TQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBjVwnaLSYGt+LYDu8rNiTWt73BzMUIyhaASgE90q1NDlcF4Qnp W9tkIsGa9dCbMm/a+Pdb9WM/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+474xPGY1h33PA3WlYfL5qk4dgteo5zjkTps5aGCPC5N/6l1Ig/LG4aW2WRqI3DM/N/KiUeQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e352:: with SMTP id n18-v6mr2070258wrj.82.1524063965153; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9sm2284806wmh.38.2018.04.18.08.06.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:06:39 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" Cc: Shahaf Shuler , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20180418150639.uc4mxy3sjnxqewbk@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> References: <20180413112023.106420-1-xuemingl@mellanox.com> <20180417151436.161374-5-xuemingl@mellanox.com> <20180418065039.6bjbx62326qdbicj@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 04/11] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type identification 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:06:05 -0000 On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:33:01PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:51 PM > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler ; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type identification > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:14:29PM +0800, Xueming Li wrote: > > > This patch introduced tunnel type identification based on flow rules. > > > If flows of multiple tunnel types built on same queue, > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK will be returned, user application could use > > > bits in flow mark as tunnel type identifier. > > > > As discussed in the previous thread, you cannot set all tunnel bits in the mbuf, it will break > > existing applications. > > > > This is an non announce API breakage. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Nélio Laranjeiro > > 6WIND > > There was another issue in code, please check below comments: > http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/096991.html I've already read this and I don't see anything related to changing the meaning of the mbuf flags. Such change is not announce, thus it cannot be accepted you must not set any flag in the mbuf if it cannot clearly identify what is in the packet. Regards, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND