Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU type

[Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>]

Hi Jeff,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:50 AM
> To: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; xiaolong.ye@intel.com;
> qi.z.zhang@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jingjing.wu@intel.com; yahui.cao@intel.com;
> simei.su@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU type
> 
> yes, Ori, please check the comment below.
> 
> 
> On 3/30/2020 6:18 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > My name is Ori 😊
> >
> > I'm not an expert in GTP so this is just my thinking and maybe I'm
> > missing something, this is why a good explanation helps 😊
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:30 AM
> >> To: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; xiaolong.ye@intel.com;
> >> qi.z.zhang@intel.com
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jingjing.wu@intel.com; yahui.cao@intel.com;
> >> simei.su@intel.com
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU
> type
> >>
> >> hi, orika
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/29/2020 4:44 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
> >>> Hi Jeff,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Guo
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 6:41 PM
> >>>> To: xiaolong.ye@intel.com; qi.z.zhang@intel.com
> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jingjing.wu@intel.com; yahui.cao@intel.com;
> >>>> simei.su@intel.com; jia.guo@intel.com
> >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU type
> >>>>
> >>>> Add gtp pdu type configure in the cmdline.
> >>> Why not use ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU?
> >>
> >> I guess you mean ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T, rihgt? We know  we have got
> >> ITEM_GTP_PSC_QFI/ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T but not define the
> >>
> >> spec for them, so what i use is add the spec into the ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T
> >> to let the pdu type to be configured.
> >>
> > Yes you are correct, from rte_flow we have the
> RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GTP_PSC
> > Item that include pdu_type. This is the field you need right?
> >
> > In testpmd we have the ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T which should support adding
> > the pdu type.
> > Basically you just need to type the following cmd line:
> > flow create 0 ingress pattern gtp_psc pdu_t is xxx
> > if this command is not working we need to understand why.
> >
> >
> 
> please check the part before this patch as below:
> 
>          [ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T] = {
>                  .name = "pdu_t",
>                  .help = "PDU type",
>                 .next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> item_param),
> 
> sure, we got the ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T at prior but the NEXT_ENTRY is
> UNSIGNED, that means we still not implement
> 
Sorry I don't understand your comment, what do you mean it is not implemented?
Yes it means that the parameter is should  be unsigned value.

> the spec to let the pdu type to be configurable, so what the patch do is
> to fix this issue.

What do you mean configurable?

Lets start at the beginning, maybe I'm just missing some key point.
What is the PDU type? What values can he hold?
How do you want the command to look like? 

> 
> 
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> v1:
> >>>> no change
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>>> index a78154502..c1bd02919 100644
> >>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>>> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ enum index {
> >>>>    	PORT_ID,
> >>>>    	GROUP_ID,
> >>>>    	PRIORITY_LEVEL,
> >>>> +	GTP_PSC_PDU_T,
> >>>>
> >>>>    	/* Top-level command. */
> >>>>    	SET,
> >>>> @@ -1626,6 +1627,13 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> >>>>    		.call = parse_int,
> >>>>    		.comp = comp_none,
> >>>>    	},
> >>>> +	[GTP_PSC_PDU_T] = {
> >>>> +		.name = "{GTPU pdu type}",
> >>>> +		.type = "INTEGER",
> >>>> +		.help = "gtpu pdu uplink/downlink identifier",
> >>>> +		.call = parse_int,
> >>>> +		.comp = comp_none,
> >>>> +	},
> >>> Why is this created at this level?
> >>> This looks like is should be written totally differently.
> >>
> >> As i said above,  the item we got but spec or say next token still need
> >> to be added, do you mean it should not in the group of Common tokens? If
> >> so, let me think about that, and please explicit your proposal if you
> >> already have one.
> >>
> > Please see above response.
> >
> >>>>    	/* Top-level command. */
> >>>>    	[FLOW] = {
> >>>>    		.name = "flow",
> >>>> @@ -2615,7 +2623,8 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> >>>>    	[ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T] = {
> >>>>    		.name = "pdu_t",
> >>>>    		.help = "PDU type",
> >>>> -		.next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> >>>> item_param),
> >>>> +		.next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc, NEXT_ENTRY(GTP_PSC_PDU_T),
> >>>> +			     item_param),
> >>>>    		.args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON(struct
> >>>> rte_flow_item_gtp_psc,
> >>>>    					pdu_type)),
> >>>>    	},
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.20.1