Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front to jump over ntuple filter case

["Zhao1, Wei" <wei.zhao1@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Qi Z
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:31 AM
> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front
> to jump over ntuple filter case
> 
> Hi Wei:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhao1, Wei
> > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:10 AM
> > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in
> > front to jump over ntuple filter case
> >
> > Hi, qi
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:36 AM
> > > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check
> > > in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Zhao1, Wei
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 2:46 AM
> > > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; mocan
> > > > <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check
> > > > in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:14 PM
> > > > > To: mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>; Zhao1, Wei
> > <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple
> > > > > check in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, got your point. We should not reject a possible valid fdir
> > > > > flow at n-tuple flow check stage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Review-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree with the point of " We should not reject a possible valid
> > > > fdir flow at n-tuple flow check stage".
> > > > But, I think the fix patch should be more generic for all types
> > > > filter of this problem.
> > > > Maybe, we should delete all " goto out"  in function
> > ixgbe_flow_create().
> > > > Then, it will go to ntuple filter and  ethertype filter, syn
> > > > filter and fdir filter ,l2_tn_filter one by one.
> > > > And aslo, we should code as
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > Ntuple:
> > > > ..........
> > > > if(ret)
> > > >     Goto ethertype
> > > > ..........
> > > >
> > > > Ethertype:
> > > >
> > > > ..........
> > > > if(ret)
> > > >     Goto fdir filter
> > > > .........
> > > >
> > > > fdir filter:
> > > >
> > > > if(ret)
> > > >   Goto l2_tn_filter
> > > >
> > > > l2_tn_filter:
> > > >
> > > > .............
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This fix patch only solve the problem of  ntuple and fdir.
> > > > Qi, What do you think of this?
> > >
> > > I'm not the author of this part of code, so my understanding of
> > > current implementation is:
> > > It assume a flow will not be ambiguous which means if it match to
> > > some filter parser (ixgbe_parse_xxx_filter), it is not necessary to
> > > match on a different filter.
> > > But I'm not sure if the assumption is correct or not, (this depends
> > > on the knowledge of the device capability), So do you mean the
> > > assumption is not correct? If you think a generic fix is necessary,
> > > I have below comments
> >
> > Yes, the assumption is may cause bug, this patch is an evidence, maybe
> > this user has encountered this problem.
> >
> > >
> > > 1. it is better be done by Intel people with enough validation
> >
> > I agree with you, I will commit a generic fix patch later.
> >
> > >2. two options  for patch submit.
> > > 	Submit a v2 with the generic fix, and it will be captured in this release.
> > > 	If it is not urgent, we can just accept current one first, then
> > >have a  separate patch in next release.
> >
> > Ok, If someone supply a v2 with the generic fix, I will ack.
> >
> 
> Just want to confirm with you , are you agree to merge this patch?
> Or you think v2 with generic fix is necessary?
> From my view, the patch can be accepted, since it just add more strict check
> in cons_parse_ntuple_filter, it does not break anything, and it fix the specific
> issue.
> 
> Thanks
> Qi
> 
> 

Of course, it can be merge, but a more generic still need.
Acked-by:  Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1@intel.com>