From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B51E2BA2 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:29:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id l68so62233736wml.1 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:29:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6JhetPmO5qphb4FAyns8VbfyieNnQKT4d6uoPm4t8no=; b=jNoBqgJVftbmmZETg30kgd2Ws5g90mkjnVNm2qlqsc/AJ+ZS9Ip7xdoeHI4zFSY7+q ODeuVwh7U0es2k5ERNjobmik6QjsI7GqEt5BElxVudiv6wcMc6uaBGiZxAnP2v7b61dn J6WgxsDx5lWHTdP6bipvLZIoRoqZH/izQW9xxSXQSYnHyCHpVOHwNGkK78jneQ9jTx3z CKRB6w+q+c5n2NBEZZCa7o1HpFsD+x2LP7saSB+AxJ3Jis6S/XrIeT59JnYm3PgcKHlm ioFvo2mP8VV/Qt4HMCgIosb6FjbRj+j2s/bjEEjQnwY8PBMsSqOkrl/qLCyGuRENqJoK F7fQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6JhetPmO5qphb4FAyns8VbfyieNnQKT4d6uoPm4t8no=; b=doG9dvkUWhoKysD4DrRSAgnnOQfTdwwF35LSJdKGuwS6FWHnGqLzIUMPXiGMkOgbwG 37XfnSoUmkYpkX6XJzpQ+PFQKQw8z93tZvav1m5twGyIeS1E5eJJ/QMNHWxnDxr5ZOVS +cPxPplDR41gn8omkGwJNtj4MNpF2rAsr0ka+xwCh/TbcdGkcqKyEl4ddwKM3nyGSkxr vtA0kXw6K1KjnpKqC6P9OJoyN6GGMEYhDtdGYPwUPZK9KgmLIKFeXmXF2CagV/C7a3yJ xsXKo7LsU1TnLIXpTeNLsMTILZoSt6VAZK2eVqgaUbjLP2UdicVbu33rWEdSR0PC1dNQ lg9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIvNVVUkmGL1m6ewvuvkv2YbowsNDKDvi/diM801DGvEMJnsFjyxz2vWvnRS47+/I8j X-Received: by 10.194.94.106 with SMTP id db10mr39592731wjb.175.1457515753940; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (171.36.101.84.rev.sfr.net. [84.101.36.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gg7sm6998287wjd.10.2016.03.09.01.29.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:29:13 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:27:32 +0100 Message-ID: <2524747.83qVv48D0D@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC090903439197@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1454051035-25757-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <1879903.OgO4X0RlNL@xps13> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC090903439197@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/5] lib/librte_ether: support l2 tunnel operations X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:29:14 -0000 2016-03-09 01:15, Lu, Wenzhuo: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 2016-03-08 14:53, Wenzhuo Lu: > > > +/** > > > + * l2 tunnel type. > > > + */ > > > +enum rte_eth_l2_tunnel_type { > > > + RTE_L2_TUNNEL_TYPE_NONE = 0, > > > + RTE_L2_TUNNEL_TYPE_E_TAG, > > > + RTE_L2_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX, > > > +}; > > > > We already have rte_eth_tunnel_type. > Seems the tunnels in rte_eth_tunnel_type are all L3 packets. So, I want to add a new type for e-tag, s-tag... as they're l2 packets. > Do you suggest to merge it into rte_eth_tunnel_type? Maybe you can keep the L2 prefix and add it in the same enum. It depends wether the rest of the API is specific to L2 or not. > > Why this struct is in rte_eth_ctrl.h and not used with rte_eth_dev_filter_ctrl? > Just want to put it together with rte_eth_tunnel_type :) > > Why are we still adding some filtering functions after having the assertion that > > the new filtering API in lib/librte_ether/rte_eth_ctrl.h was generic enough? > > The filtering API v2 was a total failure. > > Are we going to add new functions each time a new bit of a header must be > > parsed by an offloaded filtering? > > Are we going to add new functions for each new filter of a NIC? > > Sorry, my bad. I'll try to use the existing filter API. Thanks. OK, using the filtering API v2 is better. But I'm not confident it is a good API. If you have any concern, please discuss them. Because we need to discuss how to make a really generic API which fits with any filtering (flow steering) offload of any vendor while being descriptive enough and easy to use.