From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: fix tunnel flags check
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:07:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7940373.JSzZk48P3I@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8953BD@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2015-07-16 00:36, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2015-07-15 23:57, Zhang, Helin:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > A packet is tunnelled if the tunnel type is identified or if it has an inner part.
> > > >
> > > > Fix also a typo in RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L3_MASK.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: f295a00a2b44 ("mbuf: add definitions of unified packet
> > > > types")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > |...]
> > > > /* Check if it is a tunneling packet */ -#define
> > > > RTE_ETH_IS_TUNNEL_PKT(ptype) ((ptype) & RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK)
> > > > +#define RTE_ETH_IS_TUNNEL_PKT(ptype) ((ptype) &
> > > > +(RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK | \ RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L2_MASK | \
> > > > +RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L3_MASK | \
> > > > + RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_MASK))
> > >
> > > Could you help to explain more of why here?
> > > My understanding is that if an inner one can be recognized, there must be a
> > tunnel type there.
> >
> > Not always.
> > It was my comment in mlx4 patch:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-July/021702.html
> > Currently we can know that mlx4 has detected a tunnel but don't know which
> > one.
>
> I'd suggest to do more in mlx4 driver, rather than adding more checks in this macro.
> If it can detect the inner l2/l3 type, the driver should tell it is a tunneled packet.
> If it cannot know which tunnel it is, I'd suggest to add one more tunnel type of
> RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN.
> Two reasons:
> - PMD should tell enough info to high level caller or application. It should be clear enough.
RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN doesn't make it clearer, IMHO.
> - Adding more checks in those macro results in more cpu cycles for other NICs to check
> the packet types.
Not sure. It only extends the mask to check. It shouldn't add more cpu cycle.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-16 9:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-15 23:50 Thomas Monjalon
2015-07-15 23:57 ` Zhang, Helin
2015-07-16 0:13 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-07-16 0:36 ` Zhang, Helin
2015-07-16 9:07 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2015-07-23 8:48 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2015-07-24 15:06 ` Sanford, Robert
2015-07-26 21:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7940373.JSzZk48P3I@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).