From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AB745C9D; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 19:29:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50E342E68; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 19:29:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pj1-f51.google.com (mail-pj1-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F04540F35 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 19:29:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pj1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e2ed59a35eso109938a91.0 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2024 10:29:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1730917761; x=1731522561; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=oci21+MVAbCJXl8HGPgxANDwVS4Rk133/5rVEctj9oM=; b=OBX/wzn27RrghtSq6KOZZMwyJM2PWeIDXAJvyIu+yg5RG5IDO5xHONeaO5Pkky3xRT wIhqkpwd5Z1w0OZa+uIPKmxAPGeSNdNR4PQfZAg8RIJLAJbGa7LAfjMrv6gj7PyL0IFX xdGlvKWFZPEVCHQByTQSmzPx9OX3oNZIrS8mx1GVpI3o0W6IPdKGUpI5PavCziBLSGyB 5Ten5QzaG4+iJYyxF6oCffndhxTnhaY0Zev9ezmOzEk/0Q66GNJLWj/NjXq+5q9Tjjj4 aGd0aFa+CLasagMgHwdAtudj6DXtU+qlGKJA6LKP27Ve6oXxm1nSAHnQ6iZvYkXBIfoY WtBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730917761; x=1731522561; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=oci21+MVAbCJXl8HGPgxANDwVS4Rk133/5rVEctj9oM=; b=U9Y/BYLNeD2phqxSbJpG0b5pnzoHVevLm0ugjUXAegf/IQkyTn95gJUqBQ7temtY2P 4+u6YENDwSn+AoqICuALB5Ey8zrffR5LF2rA5PgniU+2QrqmSHlTlAXA26djNmjddhGA xwhFwaDlFoq0JXD4AqJpIGrSu+wQvFd6XzsgS4j2Msg16194dlZgcqCR93QR2LK/f58S YTPVK+F16H8qkc+ixQfR2N48NefEovYLAOAw+L8bkViMSiHifY7+38QK/T359UTEI5yt tbAk+0Bv+P5QPxEtI48znL0HvsCX/k+mpzaCO43IslPcgauk+f09Zs7anf48XoZ49Am+ wRog== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWMiPeGQn7OyuCdaRqLvIMt6OadudHkfXJmgXTnV5dtHVIer8DCMvjWLjajJ1lm0j+PJYc=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywic0p2e90WDsevXsYwocuz9DM8WY17T+MsVI0XPT89xj4alZRp vtril9rRFW56KnsbTnEQSzytgtQxV+B8Usn0rOeO75CM/1XfyB7E1bMIqvfujM4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHRq5rbCSmnyiy4YBG4U14/GVfIPMbOVa0LGBPf9EHhFHqUDvYovDCzuq5g5eW/1iEMzoo8ew== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:20b:b0:2e2:b46f:d92c with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e8f105e9a3mr41973448a91.14.1730917761467; Wed, 06 Nov 2024 10:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e99a5d4d00sm1879428a91.48.2024.11.06.10.29.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 Nov 2024 10:29:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:29:19 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Suanming Mou Cc: Dariusz Sosnowski , Viacheslav Ovsiienko , Bing Zhao , Ori Kam , Matan Azrad , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: update match with compare result item limitation Message-ID: <20241106102919.0171a9cc@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20241105014736.1006927-1-suanmingm@nvidia.com> References: <20241105014736.1006927-1-suanmingm@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 09:47:36 +0800 Suanming Mou wrote: > + - In switch mode, when ``repr_matching_en`` flag is enabled in the devarg, > + the match with compare result item is not supported to the ``ingress`` > + rule as an implicit REPRESENTED_PORT need to be added to the matcher. > + That REPRESENTED_PORT item conflicts with the single item limitation for > + match with compare result item. These sentences are hard to read, the wording is very awkward. Have no detailed insight into the mlx5 matching but maybe this wording: In switch mode, when the ``repr_matching_en`` flag is used then matching with ingress comparison is not supported because an implicit rule is required to match the REPRESENTED_PORT. And that implicit rule would conflict with the ingress compare rule.