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 55CBA4415C; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23424402DC; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fout6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.149]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4F440289 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:53:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151301380085; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 05:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Jun 2024 05:53:34 -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=1717581214; x=1717667614; bh=YykMlYWBFbCtXOyubhbB6bLd1e9ehRmnLdxlSW7sRyY=; b= vBeUrkAsv9Rq+B8sVj7xd4iB3QQHOcWnBtESzACu6IQ//ERupQzsfRl4GLWU8UeX oLNIHRF6wDN6zaDiaw9F5+3N69rUssB9VUdelPQ9yVIX1n9uLGMpk39Uu5S+OHnj 2kjIkk+YcRLRzaHhHKmRmfup65n5NwtcRh7gqAPGkc28QL02o0rLy/Mwitb+gJi6 X+ImZ0nGyEM4InsShu+rgwkVKzESbfJ2jkCbzyeir/m6m3WNsPSHWlbALCUNdqn7 a4OOzXqF8b/WomSHkmpXio++EWbeSBNwqVitn+6p3uY/CMD3Ok/D9PLSpR2bTqzZ rLJ7jmQ3aSx/l9jFy4MAmw== 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=1717581214; x= 1717667614; bh=YykMlYWBFbCtXOyubhbB6bLd1e9ehRmnLdxlSW7sRyY=; b=E 0DrXlMLIRkgVDMCe5f63K9Iriltnf86y3CvgSE4RHoc3enFWNBzB02BtFfeeOP1Z PHPnhPJ4xN5LxjItM8GFPvJS/W3rsgYuqq1TOJtznENZnugKPGjg7IQlSRki6mpO qtg3hpmyK5Og/217PRFBDy1bvsl/Pfc4GZa/dC1MjUrSlysZ4iB3TuM9phimauTU UlU2DH+hp276R4kWer6RXlsp61jHeSEmiEoBohIOzRgLnyxem3OkAqTuYc8QTa3I BLrviyDT4afb2pBLPspA+sWsX0YNZBY4FK7MKU8lF7ydjSYay38kuPVn56XnrjqN RmAiDTu1Ozd89S0uw4YSA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdeliedgvddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeejudevheeiveduuddtveffgfdtgeekueevjeffjeegtdeggeek gfdvuefgfeekjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 05:53:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: rongwei liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Dariusz Sosnowski , "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: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:53:30 +0200 Message-ID: <6203165.YiXZdWvhHV@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <14937324.O6BkTfRZtg@thomas> <2286527.o7ts2hSHzF@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 05/06/2024 11:41, rongwei liu: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 05/06/2024 10:14, rongwei liu: > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > Sound clear and reasonable. I would like to propose the alignment between rte_flow_field_id and rte_vxlan_hdr: > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 ---> RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > "uint8_t rsvd1" ----> "uint8_t last_rsvd" > > > > > > > > We don't change rte_vxlan_hdr, because we avoid breaking > > > > compatibility. > > > > > > How about to add a new union: > > > > > > union { > > > > > > uint8_t rsvd1; > > > uint8_t last_rsvd; > > > > > > } > > > > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD will perfectly match the rte_vxlan_hdr > > > definition.> > > > It could be a solution, yes, > > but I don't see it in your v5. > > Should I add this change in my serial or expect it in the upcoming new VXLAN header definitions? It fits better in your series.