Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add support for new metadata api

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 1/4/2017 2:43 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 12/20/2016 2:13 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
>     > NFP is a smart programmable NIC and firmware is deployed for specific
>     > system needs, like offloading OVS, vRouter, contrack or eBPF into the
>     > hardware. This often requires to give metadata to the host within
>     > packets delivered. Last NFP firmware implementations support richer
>     > metadata api facilitating interaction between firmware and host code.
>     >
>     > Old way of handling metadata needs to be still there for supporting
>     > old firmware.
>     >
>     > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com <mailto:alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>>
>     > ---
> 
>     <...>
> 
>     > +
>     > +     } else if (NFP_DESC_META_LEN(rxd)) {
>     > +             meta_offset = (uint8_t *)mbuf->buf_addr;
>     > +             meta_info = rte_be_to_cpu_32(*(uint32_t *)meta_offset);
>     > +             meta_offset += 4;
>     > +             /* NFP PMD just supports metadata for hashing */
>     > +             switch (meta_info & NFP_NET_META_FIELD_MASK) {
>     > +             case NFP_NET_META_HASH:
>     > +                     meta_info >>= NFP_NET_META_FIELD_SIZE;
>     > +                     hash = rte_be_to_cpu_32(*(uint32_t *)meta_offset);
>     > +                     hash_type = meta_info && NFP_NET_META_FIELD_MASK;
> 
>     I already applied this patch but above "&&" looks wrong.
>     Most probably intention is "bitwise AND" (&), do you want me fix this as
>     "&" or remove the patch completely to replace with new version?
> 
> 
> Yes, that is wrong. I wonder how related tests did not fail. I'll check
> that right now.
> 
> Maybe it is better to wait for another patch version or at least to be
> sure that simple change is good enough.
> Let me to peer into those tests and re-run them with that fix applied.

Removed from next-net, patchwork status updated as "Change Requested".

>  
> 
>     Thanks,
>     ferruh
> 
>