RE: [PATCH 1/7] net/mlx5: fix the modify field check of tag

[Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>]

Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 5:37 PM
> To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Bing Zhao
> <bingz@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Suanming Mou
> <suanmingm@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org; Michael Baum <michaelba@nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] net/mlx5: fix the modify field check of tag
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> 03/07/2023 15:31, Bing Zhao:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > If I understand correctly, do you mean that the internal value and rte_flow
> API value may have some conflict?
> > All the MLX5 internal enum values start from INT_MIN. When treating it as a
> int value, it would not have the same value with rte_flow enums, unless all the
> 2^^32 are defined.
> > But yes, this has some risk since there is no limitation of the values in the
> rte_flow API.
> 
> We can assume it will never happen.
> This is good to go.
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 2:09 PM
> > > To: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> > > <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Suanming Mou
> > > <suanmingm@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>;
> > > dev@dpdk.org; Michael Baum <michaelba@nvidia.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] net/mlx5: fix the modify field check of tag
> > >
> > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 08:43:03 +0300
> > > Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1117,9 +1117,10 @@ flow_dv_fetch_field(const uint8_t *data,
> > > > uint32_t size)  static inline bool
> > > > flow_modify_field_support_tag_array(enum rte_flow_field_id field)  {
> > > > -     switch (field) {
> > > > +     switch ((int)field) {
> > > >       case RTE_FLOW_FIELD_TAG:
> > > >       case RTE_FLOW_FIELD_MPLS:
> > > > +     case MLX5_RTE_FLOW_FIELD_META_REG:
> > >
> > > Mixing internal and API fields seems like something that could get
> > > easily broken by changes to rte_flow.
> >
> 
> 
> 
>