BR Rongwei ________________________________ From: Thomas Monjalon Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 23:03 To: rongwei liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org ; Matan Azrad ; Slava Ovsiienko ; Ori Kam ; Suanming Mou ; Dariusz Sosnowski ; Aman Singh ; Yuying Zhang ; Ferruh Yigit ; Andrew Rybchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add VXLAN last reserved field External email: Use caution opening links or attachments 04/06/2024 14:38, Rongwei Liu: > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ static const char *const flow_field_ids[] = { > "ipv6_flow_label", "ipv6_traffic_class", > "esp_spi", "esp_seq_num", "esp_proto", > "random", > + "vxlan_last_rsvd", > NULL > }; How vxlan_last_rsvd is linked to RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 in testpmd? Just because it is the same order? Consider the on-the-way VxLAN extension changes, the last reserved byte was naming as "uint8_t rsvd1". > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > @@ -2428,6 +2428,7 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id { > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_SEQ_NUM, /**< ESP Sequence Number. */ > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_PROTO, /**< ESP next protocol value. */ > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_RANDOM, /**< Random value. */ > + RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1, /**< VXLAN last reserved byte. */ > }; I think we should use the same naming as in testpmd. What about RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD? To be honest, no strong objection per my personal thought. Considering the API "vxlan_hdr" names this field as "uint8_t rsvd1", maybe RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 will be clearer for user as 1 vs 1 mapping?