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 435CDA0562; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:00:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7581AFF; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:00:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593E0FFA; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:00:32 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: FWTSQOiF31IR8cgHocYNiY5J/gMiePuBS5+yg2D5YyeNEa4Xw4vli0QcmwaLx4cptIGaS/N7kT Lv1P5iDvvTFA== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Mar 2020 05:00:25 -0700 IronPort-SDR: vowAflZs6+DXwiibrhun7k9HpZunx2ULLuULZXgWM3Bfity8ARNMcGlVw6aMKcAA81dOaImv/U 1teiPNONNA0A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,320,1580803200"; d="scan'208";a="266672021" Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.204]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2020 05:00:25 -0700 Received: from shsmsx605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) by FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 05:00:24 -0700 Received: from shsmsx602.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.142) by SHSMSX605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:00:22 +0800 Received: from shsmsx602.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.142]) by SHSMSX602.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.142]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:00:22 +0800 From: "Zhang, Xiao" To: Ori Kam , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: "Wang, Ying A" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Zhao1, Wei" , "stable@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API Thread-Index: AQHWBBGlpU3Uumzm102lBgy06K+oaKhemB+AgACm4VD//5mQAIAAnsbg Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:00:22 +0000 Message-ID: <2723defc86e04f0aaeb42a14183b4b5f@intel.com> References: <20200327081926.6154-1-xiao.zhang@intel.com> <2966f158164c411e897b3ab741787eea@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action dlp-product: dlpe-windows x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.36] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API 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" Hi Ori, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ori Kam > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 6:19 PM > To: Zhang, Xiao ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Wang, Ying A ; Zhang, Qi Z > ; Zhao1, Wei ; stable@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API >=20 > Hi Xiao, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zhang, Xiao > > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:06 PM > > To: Ori Kam ; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Wang, Ying A ; Zhang, Qi Z > > ; Zhao1, Wei ; > > stable@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API > > > > Hi Ori, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ori Kam > > > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:28 PM > > > To: Zhang, Xiao ; dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: Wang, Ying A ; Zhang, Qi Z > > > ; Zhao1, Wei ; > > stable@dpdk.org > > > Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API > > > > > > Hi Xiao, > > > > > > Is the proto_id part of the basic header or not? > > > > Proto_id is part of PPPOE session header, > > >=20 > Where is the porto_id located? Inside the payload? Yes, my previous explanation was not clear. The protocol ID is in the begin= ning of the payload in PPP Session Stage according to RFC2516. 1 2 = 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | VER | TYPE | CODE | SESSION_ID = | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LENGTH | payload= ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 > > > > > > From the spec it looks like a different header. > > > > > > If it is part of the original header then all documentations and > > > rte_structs > > should > > > be changed, to reflect this. > > > > > > It will be very helpful if the patch message would explain the bug > > > and why it > > was > > > changed. > > > > Okay, will add more message. The next value of the ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID > > should be unsigned value but not item list. > > > > > > > > Also please see inline other comment. > > > > > > Best, > > > Ori > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Xiao Zhang > > > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:19 AM > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > > Cc: Ori Kam ; ying.a.wang@intel.com; > > > > qi.z.zhang@intel.com; wei.zhao1@intel.com; Xiao Zhang > > > > ; stable@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API > > > > > > > > The command line to create RTE flow for specific proto_id of > > > > PPPOES is not correct. This patch is to fix this issue. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 226c6e60c35b ("ethdev: add PPPoE to flow API") > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Zhang > > > > --- > > > > app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 13 +++---------- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > > > > b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c index a78154502..c25a2598d 100644 > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > > > > @@ -768,7 +768,6 @@ static const enum index next_item[] =3D { > > > > ITEM_GTP_PSC, > > > > ITEM_PPPOES, > > > > ITEM_PPPOED, > > > > - ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID, > > > > ITEM_HIGIG2, > > > > ITEM_TAG, > > > > ITEM_L2TPV3OIP, > > > > @@ -1030,11 +1029,6 @@ static const enum index item_pppoed[] =3D { > > > > > > > > static const enum index item_pppoes[] =3D { > > > > ITEM_PPPOE_SEID, > > > > - ITEM_NEXT, > > > > - ZERO, > > > > -}; > > > > - > > > > -static const enum index item_pppoe_proto_id[] =3D { > > > > ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID, > > > > ITEM_NEXT, > > > > ZERO, > > > > @@ -2643,10 +2637,9 @@ static const struct token token_list[] =3D { > > > > [ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID] =3D { > > > > .name =3D "proto_id", > > > > .help =3D "match PPPoE session protocol identifier", > > > > - .priv =3D PRIV_ITEM(PPPOE_PROTO_ID, > > > > - sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id)), > > > > - .next =3D NEXT(item_pppoe_proto_id), > > > > - .call =3D parse_vc, > > > > + .next =3D NEXT(item_pppoes, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED), > > > > item_param), > > > > + .args =3D ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON > > > > + (struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id, proto_id)), > > > > > > Where is the memory for this proto_id is defined? > > > > Do you mean this? > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > > 1360 struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id { > > 1361 rte_be16_t proto_id; /**< PPP protocol identifier. */ > > 1362 }; > > >=20 > Yes. Why don't you use this one? I think I was using this, am I using it incorrectly? + .args =3D ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON + (struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id, proto_id)), >=20 > > > > > > > }, > > > > [ITEM_HIGIG2] =3D { > > > > .name =3D "higig2", > > > > -- > > > > 2.17.1