Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking

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

On 11/6/2020 2:20 PM, Bing Zhao wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 7:35 PM
>> To: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
>> <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>> <rasland@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous
>> layer checking
>>
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2020 5:42 AM, Bing Zhao wrote:
>>> Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
>> or
>>> UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
>>> checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.
>>>
>>> Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI
>> header")
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
>>> Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>    1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
>>> b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c index a6e60af..11dba3b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
>>> @@ -2896,17 +2896,23 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
>>>                                        MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN);
>>>        struct rte_flow_item_ecpri mask_lo;
>>>
>>> +     if (!(last_item & outer_l2_vlan) &&
>>> +         last_item != MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
>>> +             return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>>> +                                       RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> item,
>>> +                                       "eCPRI can only follow
>> L2/VLAN layer"
>>> +                                       " or UDP layer.");
>>>        if ((last_item & outer_l2_vlan) && ether_type &&
>>>            ether_type != RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI)
>>>                return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>>>                                          RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> item,
>>> -                                       "eCPRI cannot follow
>> L2/VLAN layer "
>>> -                                       "which ether type is not
>> 0xAEFE.");
>>> +                                       "eCPRI cannot follow
>> L2/VLAN layer"
>>> +                                       " which ether type is not
>>> + 0xAEFE.");
>>>        if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
>>>                return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>>>                                          RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> item,
>>> -                                       "eCPRI with tunnel is not
>> supported "
>>> -                                       "right now.");
>>> +                                       "eCPRI with tunnel is not
>> supported"
>>> +                                       " right now.");
>>
>> Why these changes done, it only moves space from end of first line
>> to beginning of the second line?
> 
> Yes, because when I am doing the fix. I found this log part is different from others in the same file and just want to be consistent.
> 
>>
>> Overall I think no need to break the log strings, keeping them
>> intact helps users search the error message in the code.
>> I assume the break is because of the 80 chars limit but for log
>> strings we don't have that limit, unless it is too long (lets say
>> 120 chars as thumb of rule, there is no official convention) I think
>> better to not break.
> 
> Good point, in the past when I was searching some logs and I failed due to the long log line break.
> 
>>
>> What do you think remove the whitespace changes out of this commit
>> and make another patch to merge the log strings?
> 
> Yes I can and will send v2 of this.
> Or should I keep the log in a single line @Slava Ovsiienko, what do you think? Any comments?
> I remember in the past, my "checkpatch.pl" will report warning against this. Could we ignore this?
> 

As far as I know checkpatch is not complaining for the long lines of the string, 
even it does I am OK to ignore it.