From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1592946 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:48:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2017 06:48:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,459,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="49436477" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.38]) ([10.237.220.38]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2017 06:48:04 -0800 To: Alejandro Lucero References: <1482243237-28625-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> Cc: dev From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <67da8c13-f437-92f7-05fd-9ef441860757@intel.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:48:03 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add support for new metadata 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:48:25 -0000 On 1/4/2017 2:43 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Ferruh Yigit > 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 > > > --- > > <...> > > > + > > + } 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 > >