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 017FF44157; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:37:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E256A402DC; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fhigh3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.154]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DE64029C for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDFA11400FF; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Jun 2024 14:37:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1717526229; x=1717612629; bh=fyhyCRKNB2pCre6lEbQMAogbRQYglQ+zYnWceFcLJVw=; b= aMIbzGEDXR5jXyNM8vLZj49dZI40SRwHsG7P+VCwyvmCyEFGbAUzFMyc8XH3hdjI 5t2qcLyyssVkijAZbQKguuaULB0y0rKAoJ79KpWj3JsGhyky2aG750HIaI9jPHnH xll3n42xcyJafqilsngraKfwfVK2XdD/y4uBFhu2+s/D+Hf/3xwgAUYJLYAixU12 2wD27fu6DoW0JftedIVCEFYfkp0pVHLFtw+XXzuJWi5HS3WKJX28QGWIjlcrjz5m pocEFX+IAPf9JcrMKX6aqhlbCEfVQ81mwxOSzym5snhZ1krMyixdrgMmQR0icZUX a2DNjSZaHI/CJOZcpPsqOA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1717526229; x= 1717612629; bh=fyhyCRKNB2pCre6lEbQMAogbRQYglQ+zYnWceFcLJVw=; b=E oxUASFhI7KhoSsunOa5LIx/Bw0nqJrJU44OYOEULHMz/ZBi3LWbwLuSjhjHy45us pvSDuvjepijl4dYRUrv48IRZCT+pd5MT5+0OimEvSXZ448NWsVWmk9mb13Ef8bRs 4xOeSuEJiBzZC0/8Os6xM6yiVNxTp0BuxAiEoA0NT5G+Uc7bpDss6vRDKkrQ+THC O5+yPLW9168ABqyYLPnEU2uXyL2do9PGqfke4kNO6koPM92p3dGKuNlhUKKgWzDF SCMXKHmO0SfmO2C6dC8C0By5AsHksXhgUVGDLXwYixAlYIeHFgQpFQESnx7gS5O0 BtS0BBF+8sAFxXgO4wzXg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdelgedguddvvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeduveehieevuddutdevfffgtdegkeeuveejffejgedtgeeg kefgvdeugfefkeejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:37:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: rongwei liu , Dariusz Sosnowski Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Matan Azrad , Slava Ovsiienko , Ori Kam , Suanming Mou , Aman Singh , Yuying Zhang , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add VXLAN last reserved field Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 20:37:05 +0200 Message-ID: <5068960.a9HWlOh95j@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <14937324.O6BkTfRZtg@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 04/06/2024 18:40, Dariusz Sosnowski: > > > 04/06/2024 14:38, Rongwei Liu: > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > > > > @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ static const char *const flow_field_ids[] = { > > > > "ipv6_flow_label", "ipv6_traffic_class", > > > > "esp_spi", "esp_seq_num", "esp_proto", > > > > "random", > > > > + "vxlan_last_rsvd", > > > > NULL > > > > }; > > > > > > How vxlan_last_rsvd is linked to RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 in testpmd? > > > Just because it is the same order? > > Yes, it's because of the order. > We should refactor this to use array designators. > > > > > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > @@ -2428,6 +2428,7 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id { > > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_SEQ_NUM, /**< ESP Sequence Number. */ > > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_PROTO, /**< ESP next protocol value. */ > > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_RANDOM, /**< Random value. */ > > > > + RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1, /**< VXLAN last reserved byte. */ > > > > }; > > > > > > I think we should use the same naming as in testpmd. > > > What about RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD? > > To be honest, no strong objection per my personal thought. Considering the API "vxlan_hdr" names this field as "uint8_t rsvd1", maybe RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 will be clearer for user as 1 vs 1 mapping? > > +1 on using RSVD1 so it matches rte_vxlan_hdr definition. > > In this patch, "vxlan_last_rsvd" is used in testpmd, so it matches existing "last_rsvd" field in VXLAN item. > If we choose to use "rsvd1", we should probably rename all other instances of "last_rsvd" to match. I prefer "vxlan_last_rsvd" for 2 reasons: - it is more meaningful - we are adding first, second and third reserved fields to match the 3 bytes of rsvd0 (patch to come)