2014-10-21 13:48, Liu, Jijiang: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > 2014-10-21 16:46, Jijiang Liu: > > > int > > > +rte_eth_dev_udp_tunnel_add(uint8_t port_id, > > > + struct rte_eth_udp_tunnel *udp_tunnel, > > > + uint8_t count) > > > +{ > > > + uint8_t i; > > > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev; > > > + struct rte_eth_udp_tunnel *tunnel; > > > + > > > + if (port_id >= nb_ports) { > > > + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port_id=%d\n", port_id); > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (udp_tunnel == NULL) { > > > + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid udp_tunnel parameter\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + tunnel = udp_tunnel; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++, tunnel++) { > > > + if (tunnel->prot_type >= RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX) { > > > + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid tunnel type\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + } > > > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to provide a count parameter to iterate in a > > loop. > > It's probably something that the application should do by itself. > > It is necessary to check if this prot_type(tunnel type) is valid here in case > applications don't do that.
Yes, you have to check prot_type but looping for several tunnels is not needed at this level. > > But I doubt we should configure a tunnel type for a whole port. > > Yes, your understanding is correct. It is for a whole port/PF, that's why we > should add tunnel_type in rte_eth_conf structure. Please explain me why a tunnel type should be associated to a port. This design looks really broken. Thanks -- Thomas
