From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADCF689E for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:58:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01694209DD; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:58:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=i7smdxCMeMo1yi/ bR+QXEv45e1/WCCTG7WkDGM/JsrI=; b=RhMxdY2FyvfTlsTgM5sbJTyFspByVlK rypn5OrSD/7dJdxCq+hThMX4IK8wRwJ8ulDu4vDSQ3SkhOIlmMdeg1LjKdeKpm19 vLICXcFeCnb8s5YIGvp72yl6e3OtwuM9DwNSDt4CaKKrgSAbeVcwO0hMYk5GiCOQ 7pZr/mmgOD/U= 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=i7smdxCMeMo1yi/bR+QXEv45e1/WCCTG7WkDGM/JsrI=; b=f21xyqxz G8M+Zfo4AawUg2lvpHVHc5WLPz1MPm1Qmhk7FnWxqvz5cKTK2t52XxfsUWLK6bGd rakj28WeVHSCmZkF+VThmiss1DePz5WwbiBy/FOlOtwLY4Qxw7Yy+gAKQ6SE7689 qID1Lfei0pnu74uCiry2NkfqvW3/4m0ffFlnN41VJkMqcszg4Od1vlRX5sCGZJNY k+GQgCcXNJnRu2iiA+uEEJrHWJu/A94hjqoLacfytyLyto8lgptFtXkOlGckCI/Q DInsDpvywV3NDG9pXajPnUEJdBkip8MLhTtBOo2qEi0FKyCJGm7FnS4dh2Ef97ha ZBYYzPA4WMK1Gg== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: NA/Z4g+BxMv+YPe/ktrlTPaSANRmRd61IhHkRZXVyN7U 1493567927 Received: from xps.localnet (245.114.118.80.rev.sfr.net [80.118.114.245]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6A1CC7E6B1; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:58:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier MATZ Cc: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= , dev@dpdk.org Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:58:45 +0200 Message-ID: <5260370.FTaY66JWmf@xps> In-Reply-To: <20170209165638.34019d58@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> References: <1643890.a9zoQB8M0i@xps13> <20170209165638.34019d58@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 03/13] rte_ether: set PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED in rte_vlan_strip() 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: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:58:48 -0000 09/02/2017 16:56, Olivier MATZ: > Hi, >=20 > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:54:08 +0100, Thomas Monjalon > wrote: > > It is fixing the introduction of the new flag PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED. > >=20 > > Fixes: b37b528d957c ("mbuf: add new Rx flags for stripped VLAN") > >=20 > > This patch is applying the flag to the software emulation case > > (currently only for virtio). > > So the comment of this flag should be changed: > >=20 > > /** > > * A vlan has been stripped by the hardware and its tci is saved in > > * mbuf->vlan_tci. This can only happen if vlan stripping is enabled > > * in the RX configuration of the PMD. > > */ > > #define PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED (1ULL << > > 6) = =20 > >=20 > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw =20 > > [...] > > > --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h > > > @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ static inline int rte_vlan_strip(struct > > > rte_mbuf *m) return -1; > > > =20 > > > struct vlan_hdr *vh =3D (struct vlan_hdr *)(eh + 1); > > > - m->ol_flags |=3D PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT; > > > + m->ol_flags |=3D PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT | PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED; > > > m->vlan_tci =3D rte_be_to_cpu_16(vh->vlan_tci); > > > =20 > > > /* Copy ether header over rather than moving whole packet > > > */ =20 > >=20 > > I think this flag should also be removed in the function > > rte_vlan_insert(). >=20 > Agree with Thomas, I think rte_vlan_insert() should be updated too. >=20 > But I don't think the comment of the mbuf flag should be changed: > "stripped by the hardware" is a bit ambiguous for virtual drivers, but > we can understand that for virtual drivers the same work is done in > software. No more comment? Olivier, the author is not replying. I think we should have updated the patch ourself. How risky it is for 17.05? Should it wait for 17.08?