BR

Rongwei



________________________________
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 23:03
To: rongwei liu <rongweil@nvidia.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>; Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang <yuying.zhang@intel.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>; Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add VXLAN last reserved field

External email: Use caution opening links or attachments


04/06/2024 14:38, Rongwei Liu:
> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ static const char *const flow_field_ids[] = {
>       "ipv6_flow_label", "ipv6_traffic_class",
>       "esp_spi", "esp_seq_num", "esp_proto",
>       "random",
> +     "vxlan_last_rsvd",
>       NULL
>  };

How vxlan_last_rsvd is linked to RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 in testpmd?
Just because it is the same order?

Consider the on-the-way VxLAN extension changes, the last reserved byte was naming as "uint8_t rsvd1".

> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -2428,6 +2428,7 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id {
>       RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_SEQ_NUM,     /**< ESP Sequence Number. */
>       RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_PROTO,       /**< ESP next protocol value. */
>       RTE_FLOW_FIELD_RANDOM,          /**< Random value. */
> +     RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1,     /**< VXLAN last reserved byte. */
>  };

I think we should use the same naming as in testpmd.
What about RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD?

To be honest, no strong objection per my personal thought.  Considering the API "vxlan_hdr" names this field as "uint8_t rsvd1", maybe RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 will be clearer for user as 1 vs 1 mapping?