DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Leo Xu (Networking SW)" <yongquanx@nvidia.com>
To: "NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>,
	Ori Kam <orika@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>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add ICMPv6 ID and sequence
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 02:56:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CH2PR12MB4248C57228C53FC9F6B11AAFC4D79@CH2PR12MB4248.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1991609.QkHrqEjB74@thomas>


> 02/02/2023 19:33, Leo Xu (Networking SW):
> > > 31/01/2023 07:53, Leo Xu (Networking SW):
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > > 20/12/2022 08:44, Leo Xu:
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * ICMP6 header
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +struct rte_icmp6_hdr {
> > > > > > +     uint8_t type;
> > > > > > +     uint8_t code;
> > > > > > +     rte_be16_t checksum;
> > > > > > +} __rte_packed;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * ICMP6 echo
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +struct rte_icmp6_echo {
> > > > > > +     struct rte_icmp6_hdr hdr;
> > > > > > +     rte_be16_t identifier;
> > > > > > +     rte_be16_t sequence;
> > > > > > +} __rte_packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > It is exactly the same as struct rte_icmp_hdr.
> > > > > Why not reuse it?
> > > > > Maybe introduce struct rte_icmp_base_hdr and define
> > > > > rte_icmp_echo_hdr as rte_icmp_hdr?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > Looks like, using rte_icmp_hdr as base header for both icmp and
> > > > icmpv6 is
> > > not that good.
> > > > since, rte_icmp_hdr default their headers always having id and
> > > > sequence
> > > fields, which is not applicable for most other icmp6/icmp types packets.
> > > >
> > > > I may suggest to keep icmp and icmp6 structures independent
> > > > against each
> > > other, because, looks like these two protocols definitions do not
> > > share common base.
> > >
> > > What about introducing rte_icmp_base_hdr?
> > > We should try to avoid duplicating things.
> > >
> >
> > You mean introduce rte_icmp_base_hdr like following?
> > struct rte_icmp_base_hdr {
> >       uint8_t  icmp_type;
> >       uint8_t  icmp_code;
> >       rte_be16_t icmp_cksum;
> > } __rte_packed;
> >
> > And change the existing rte_icmp_hdr to be:
> > struct rte_icmp_hdr {
> >       rte_icmp_base_hdr bash_hdr;
> >       rte_be16_t icmp_ident;
> >       rte_be16_t icmp_seq_nb;
> > } __rte_packed;
> > #define rte_icmp6_echo struct rte_icmp_hdr;
> >
> > If it is, there will be some compatibilities issues, since we changed existing
> structure.
> >
> > Or, maybe I'm missing something.
> > Would you help to give more details about above comment?
> 
> Currently we have this:
> struct rte_icmp_hdr {
>     uint8_t  icmp_type;     /* ICMP packet type. */
>     uint8_t  icmp_code;     /* ICMP packet code. */
>     rte_be16_t icmp_cksum;  /* ICMP packet checksum. */
>     rte_be16_t icmp_ident;  /* ICMP packet identifier. */
>     rte_be16_t icmp_seq_nb; /* ICMP packet sequence number. */ }
> __rte_packed;
> 
> I agree we can move some fields in a base struct, it would change the API.
> We could manage with a union, but we would lose the benefit.
> It looks like we need to keep rte_icmp_hdr as is.
> So we need to duplicate and define new structs.
> 
> What about removing the "6" from the new structs, so it would apply both to
> IPv4 and IPv6?
> 
> struct rte_icmp_base_hdr {
>         uint8_t type;
>         uint8_t code;
>         rte_be16_t checksum;
> } __rte_packed;
> 
> struct rte_icmp_echo_hdr {
>         struct rte_icmp_base_hdr base;
>         rte_be16_t identifier;
>         rte_be16_t sequence;
> } __rte_packed;
> 
> 

I agree with that proposal.
Then, we can deem existing struct rte_icmp_hdr as old one, which should not be used in new app.
And looks like, these new defined structures can cover all ICMP4/6 formats.
Good idea!
I will update accordingly, in next patch.


  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-03  2:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-12  8:59 [PATCH 0/3] support match icmpv6 id " Leo Xu
2022-12-12  8:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: add ICMPv6 " Leo Xu
2022-12-12  8:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/mlx5: add ICMPv6 id and sequence match support Leo Xu
2022-12-12  8:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] net/mlx5/hws: " Leo Xu
2022-12-20  7:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] support match icmpv6 ID and sequence Leo Xu
2022-12-20  7:44   ` [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add ICMPv6 " Leo Xu
2023-01-03  8:17     ` Ori Kam
2023-01-18  9:30     ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-31  6:53       ` Leo Xu (Networking SW)
2023-02-01  9:56         ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-02 18:33           ` Leo Xu (Networking SW)
2023-02-02 21:23             ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-03  2:56               ` Leo Xu (Networking SW) [this message]
2023-01-26 10:45     ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-31  3:58       ` Leo Xu (Networking SW)
2022-12-20  7:44   ` [PATCH v2 2/3] net/mlx5: add ICMPv6 ID and sequence match support Leo Xu
2023-01-18  8:55     ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-31  6:57       ` Leo Xu (Networking SW)
2022-12-20  7:44   ` [PATCH v2 3/3] net/mlx5/hws: " Leo Xu
2023-01-18  8:58     ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-31  6:56       ` Leo Xu (Networking SW)
2023-01-26 10:47   ` [PATCH v2 0/3] support match icmpv6 ID and sequence Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-31  3:54     ` Leo Xu (Networking SW)
2023-02-05 13:41   ` [PATCH v3 " Leo Xu
2023-02-05 13:41     ` [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: add ICMPv6 " Leo Xu
2023-02-05 13:41     ` [PATCH v3 2/3] net/mlx5: add ICMPv6 ID and sequence match support Leo Xu
2023-02-07 13:48       ` Slava Ovsiienko
2023-02-05 13:41     ` [PATCH v3 3/3] net/mlx5/hws: " Leo Xu
2023-02-07 13:05       ` Alex Vesker
2023-02-07 13:49       ` Slava Ovsiienko
2023-02-09 13:04     ` [PATCH v3 0/3] support match icmpv6 ID and sequence Ferruh Yigit

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=CH2PR12MB4248C57228C53FC9F6B11AAFC4D79@CH2PR12MB4248.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=yongquanx@nvidia.com \
    --cc=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=bingz@nvidia.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=orika@nvidia.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=yuying.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).