From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB1BA04F5; Sat, 30 May 2020 17:13:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCA61D5C2; Sat, 30 May 2020 17:13:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0314E1D5AA; Sat, 30 May 2020 17:13:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id d7so2495259ioq.5; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3BU3+pS2LpcrQD8hvKCShlv3r2RRmtB2wvHpkjr8rms=; b=c/uFUhmr7KTyL+bUoxNx7b0eqdQXWjsrMkmW61x/1XXKeNddu1fxspiHAv1iKFm7VP eV6HUqeRjwmZZFhLzeqzQUQpsUqo7jaQxGL915NmUQcDqqYeT2BOvmIZld7H91nfB0SN g+8naSrljgkUONFGhgZrNJnQGrmzQfEo0N2DeDzDN7Lc4DJJ58SNXuB22Vil4ci8cSLO 9AS73pAUU0XGlDJEv63de8qCl6O8TjbO2RGP2kn/CgYGOn8dQPA0kKdEIpxYiN4meRZ8 Z/AgldYaLR1Pq+A3JfySUTUp6c02kWbuHyulh+Ct9Gz+yWYNm7wsEDO/qx6fzm96QjFa kZUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3BU3+pS2LpcrQD8hvKCShlv3r2RRmtB2wvHpkjr8rms=; b=kNMFK74ZH2VUnpURN4VxcIbqRdt8qlo37JGVzIFXHrOL2Ti0DFIVfQc9MV9H/7VUKB WmC6WhgslnTwHRnL/uv8N6J7yJ66hlwFKmQzQJZttbampr7fPkJpSDOqP62VM7t0xQZj YZtIXzIZW9QpqwarirU+PadIKjdqJan6Ijpsmsd8xiDktDW1xvSuxrZKtW41o/FJ7noH 0u0+zQJ3Hmu03NtyrboN55tezMEsScDK4ydWwe3nJjsCdyZ41pXOcPbsYppXKGfHJznv jwy+ZGBSQKT8rMoPD+TaD7nnTqxKjuM2rZubWfmiDSUCIJwDccnxy16EkIwe9SVo4n4K GE2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339JtFxoBvz9KY8HktAnE86wtpXlp6L0Zs96gQJeKOMHnIbxn15 hLuVuTYjyycsCbeM6ZKIkvIzksJebrSWn0cM6QI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsuu/NzHi+l8qc3P4l3VqfQBp180MDDCUNYSTuGPxa9M+Xij2tgkD8nM6BGE9FNp4zfD89F4beWP7Wk7hedDc= X-Received: by 2002:a02:6d0a:: with SMTP id m10mr12303478jac.133.1590851595986; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:13:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200504080634.GB6327@platinum> <20200504082706.GA6153@outlook.office365.com> <20200504091640.GC6327@platinum> <20200504100457.GB6153@outlook.office365.com> <20200504122735.GD6327@platinum> <20200505061920.GA1705@outlook.office365.com> <20200514202931.GF1739@platinum> <20200515100845.GA19989@outlook.office365.com> <20200515135746.GB9696@outlook.office365.com> <20200528154328.GA3029@outlook.office365.com> In-Reply-To: <20200528154328.GA3029@outlook.office365.com> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 20:42:59 +0530 Message-ID: To: Nithin Dabilpuram Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Cristian Dumitrescu , Olivier Matz , Nithin Dabilpuram , Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Andrew Rybchenko , Ori Kam , "Burakov, Anatoly" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , dpdk-dev , Jerin Jacob , Krzysztof Kanas , techboard@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] mbuf: add Tx offloads for packet marking 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > > > I also share Olivier's concern about consuming 3 bits in ol_flags for that feature. > > > Can it probably be squeezed somehow? > > > Let say we reserve one flag that this information is present or not, and > > > re-use one of rx-only fields for store additional information (packet_type, or so). > > > Or might be some other approach. > > > > We are fine with this approach where we define one bit in Tx offloads for pkt > > marking and and 3 bits reused from Rx offload flags area. > > > > For example: > > > > @@ -186,10 +186,16 @@ extern "C" { > > > > /* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */ > > > > +/* Reused Rx offload bits for Tx offloads */ > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI (1ULL << 0) > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP (1ULL << 1) > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_IP_ECN (1ULL << 2) > > + > > #define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23) > > -#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40) > > +#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 39) > > > > /* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */ > > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_EN (1ULL << 40) > > > > Is this fine ? > > Any thoughts on this approach which uses only 1 bit in Tx flags out of 18 > and reuse unused Rx flag bits ? + Techboard There is a related thread going on http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-May/168810.html If there is no consensus on email, then I would like to add this item to the next TB meeting.