Re: [dpdk-dev] mlx5 FDIR rule comparison issue

[benli ye <danielbenliye@gmail.com>]

Thanks Dekel for your information. I will have a try.

Bests,
Daniel

> On Apr 4, 2019, at 7:18 PM, Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> The flow_director API will be deprecated in the near future.
> It was replaced by rte_flow API, which contains much more features, and is fully supported by Mellanox.
> 
> It is recommended that you use rte_flow API in your application.
> 
> Regards,
> Dekel
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: benli ye <danielbenliye@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 11:30 AM
>> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: mlx5 FDIR rule comparison issue
>> 
>> +Dekel
>> 
>> Add Dekel to see if this is an issue.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>> 
>>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 3:23 PM, benli ye <danielbenliye@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Developers,
>>> 
>>> I am adding two FDIR rule (one is for UDP and the other is for TCP) for mlx5
>> pmd driver. The rules are listed below.
>>>   struct rte_eth_fdir_filter filt[MAX_FDIR_PROTO] = {
>>>       {
>>>           .input.flow_type = RTE_ETH_FLOW_NONFRAG_IPV4_TCP,
>>>           .input.flow.tcp4_flow.ip.dst_ip = dip,
>>>           .input.flow.tcp4_flow.dst_port = dport,
>>> 
>>>           .action.behavior = RTE_ETH_FDIR_ACCEPT,
>>>           .action.report_status = RTE_ETH_FDIR_REPORT_ID,
>>>           .soft_id = 0,
>>>       },
>>>       {
>>>           .input.flow_type = RTE_ETH_FLOW_NONFRAG_IPV4_UDP,
>>>           .input.flow.udp4_flow.ip.dst_ip = dip,
>>>           .input.flow.udp4_flow.dst_port = dport,
>>> 
>>>           .action.behavior = RTE_ETH_FDIR_ACCEPT,
>>>           .action.report_status = RTE_ETH_FDIR_REPORT_ID,
>>>           .soft_id = 1,
>>>       },
>>>   };
>>> 
>>> However, mlx5 lib prevent me to doing this as when it treats the two rules
>> are the same.
>>> 
>>> I debugged for a while and found flow_fdir_cmp() didn’t compare the
>> protocol type in field items of struct mlx5_fdir. So should this be a bug for
>> mlx5?
>>> 
>>> flow_fdir_cmp(const struct mlx5_fdir *f1, const struct mlx5_fdir *f2)
>>> {
>>> 	if (FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, attr) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, l2) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, l2_mask) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, l3) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, l3_mask) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, l4) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, l4_mask) ||
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, actions[0].type))
>>> 		return 1;
>>> 	if (f1->actions[0].type == RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_QUEUE &&
>>> 	    FLOW_FDIR_CMP(f1, f2, queue))
>>> 		return 1;
>>> 	return 0;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel
>