From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B004FA0561; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:49:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074B71C029; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:49:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671511BFDC for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:49:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852815C0352; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:49:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=g/mNGfr873bhZc5asiirCkW/ZRcN+CvQA+pHVTbP87w=; b=KfbMsiSD0xYs keG6vBSPcpsT2o1TQnQcwbdKLZxPmolam8KOs/sNUWPovdvATICGUQvadx9poLp2 O2PyKqNpFoBjmbeY0g7jmV7Ac78YdG47yOIIT3rdVPTdL08/drFlDe6yVcpx+tfr NTwJHnh5acvRiM82qOeTS/00/3PIhnk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=g/mNGfr873bhZc5asiirCkW/ZRcN+CvQA+pHVTbP8 7w=; b=Z0eZhyW2HGzQMPlXEzTQKh+AEfmZzzaw2RiIlk2a1YlWfqdLLShqP0qbX 8k3/WjgYLczLjGDR5uCBf5d3fo5nQ+LU4ibRFPtafkAtYHYXqU6pgFaCNWQEUo+j 6EaJwWIf/Echzcz3ooVd/jzw0r9TzQFgwxNYVBR5az3sZEMMQdfZc/UGkTHAp7+u thLW9fnQaDHDFniwUONjKMZ0tNM8NqgeIrEvhuUFg3uxnwTrZn7xMpz7NGfh+CMr Mdi3Na725ZXwJ4VWHp9ZmDjw6R0aTsv18y16f1yaXY8d1cxpwzNSq6z3OvhzzVUn qw4CSDCoFRPYEwbBepghj2XKenPCw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeiuddgudegvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc fkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfr rghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 69043306C754; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tom Barbette , beilei.xing@intel.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com, Andrew Rybchenko Cc: dev@dpdk.org, orika@mellanox.com Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:49:39 +0100 Message-ID: <2749731.BaHzMo0RvP@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <2aa27e9f-6063-0842-8819-f6f0fd17267c@kth.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_flow: Different devices have different field indianess? 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 27/03/2020 15:44, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 3/27/20 5:29 PM, Tom Barbette wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > It seems rte_flow_item_eth takes its ethertype in host byte order with > > i40e, but in network byte order with mlx5. > > If so, it is definitely bug in i40e, since struct rte_flow_item_eth > defines type as rte_be16_t type. Someone to open a bugzilla for this i40e bug please?