From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com (mail-it0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB6B199B5 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:02:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id m194-v6so12984330itg.2 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:02:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V9F6Vp771X839wrV7MJJxGPv3PF2xYAkADWxcqkRSnU=; b=eZRqUl3ynzdZ/Duvb2tN/mw1f1H5Odu38WNVS99IyJCEbTWsuHDi2zC6G+6DQRTD4T uyNJqJyFjcFoFsYIpPrWzPCoKzXhUZ0c2Vuz7JONoo/JHwlVuaDPVg5HAajD0+k+47r7 l/JSyRvM3zz5w8oWXoEw/3gVfKZR4gYSf87MhUUhswlyWxHggX+J5bC4TZYAKmKCVBLQ hOSl/kC+VdC2L4HB4jOmw7IGXSz/fqD2w//FX8otlhEqlrcbKvV22Mv4sCm6f0Y68EO8 vppgzSxFdNiz2EDkpwx1WPwNHk7GyZdPJ+b7YiNtr1ktlzD9jF6jd0XsAl37TNbB2MDz fuGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V9F6Vp771X839wrV7MJJxGPv3PF2xYAkADWxcqkRSnU=; b=bdRIKGYzf3vUoqvKd1KaGRrnPZQd/XAa0ni3ek5FZY3/0eS+W0ETIKLnttD7yV+QoN Jtslk7b0eqQkESu/806tcAriz+1B1Qkj3OqMsgG9aMaCTWk6ug4uiC9x9N65dJ/3Xl3S g1pLBZpPpSVK8FRn/CXd73TJlUldMB4X23/VZiDtIqEYC3SnzxCc8JFzPYG8Qb5yzkib 7cNIKwwcl8MDl4iOzWkM5IERsJmTswQvjK5Yc5Ywi3QZ6LCoRXZ5arboD2xUn7UpkxtR gnIgf6gAz1TBnHoit/oFGLpXmYzkpRI3/iIB61nN3dANi4tkLgsif/MGjmSv8lATis5v SFyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1/8f3ZfGJy2RgPATOO0t/vokcwkl5mvd7nzcxAdfp0Avvwg3W+ hzpBKpGuWKYSPEICrtNPnqPENd8nCg97Vaf92KYw3g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLmSFC//GhC9D3f31Xx+Lp2i2CU9tStrjT01P83Cah45oJQTH9sH0/EV2lwgihZa3cBkgKLbm/duIb6M6ZCW/I= X-Received: by 2002:a24:f6c8:: with SMTP id u191-v6mr1876130ith.56.1528380162922; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:02:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac0:929d:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 07:02:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Shyam Shrivastav Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 19:32:42 +0530 Message-ID: To: hongbo liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why rte_pipeline.c only support forwarding to same table in different entries? 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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 14:02:44 -0000 Looking at code, another change might make this work. Make sure that default entry action of each table points to next table except for last one which normally should be drop Please look at if (lookup_miss_mask != 0) handling in rte_pipeline_run () . On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:49 PM, hongbo liu wrote: > Hi, > > I am frustrated when designing pipeline table. > > I am trying to have one ACL table 0 to forward different traffic to > different table, but it failed. > > And I noticed that the following checks in rte_pipeline.c: > /**************************************************************** > if ((entry->action == RTE_PIPELINE_ACTION_TABLE) && > table->table_next_id_valid && > (entry->table_id != table->table_next_id)) { > RTE_LOG(ERR, PIPELINE, > "%s: Tree-like topologies not allowed\n", __func__); > return -EINVAL; > } > ****************************************************************/ > > Is there any reason why adding this limitation? > > In openflow, the limitation is the forward table_id must be larger than > current table_id, and the final > table should not have forward table action. > > By the way, it still does not work after removing upper checks. > > Is it difficult to support forwarding to multiple tables in different > entries? > > -- > Hobby >