> > > Wait a minute.. does this mean that if the user passes, say, ETH / IPV4 / UDP
> > > pattern and the 'spec' and 'mask' of ETH are both 'null', the actual key/mask
> > > values in the HW rule will be, say, for the EtherType, '0000' and 'ffff'?
> > > Is this correct? And which part of DPDK interface envisages that?
> > 
> > > Again, may be it's just my misunderstanding.
> > 
> >  Sorry, I misunderstood and caused you inconvenience.
> >  If the user does not set 'spec' and 'mask', we will set 'spec' '0000' and mask 'ffff' write fd table to HW,
> >  not set by DPDK interface.
> >  If the user set one of 'spec' and 'mask', we will also set 'spec' '0000' and mask 'ffff' write fd table to HW.
> >  This is how we handle it.

> Understood. But is this the best course of action? Say, what happens if the user
> passes ETH / IPV4 / UDP pattern items, where 'spec' and 'mask' are 'null' in all
> the items? Theoretically, the driver could translate this to set the key to have
> EtherType 0x0800/0xffff and IP protocol to be 0x11/0xff . Or am I wrong?

> Thank you.

 Yes, you are right. Currently, our plan is not optimal, and we will take your suggestions as a reference.
 If there are any optimizations in the future, we will resubmit it.

 Thank you very much.