On 8/20/2018 4:45 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 6/26/2018 9:54 AM, Xueming Li wrote:
>> Currently, rte_flow pattern only match packet header fields.
>> This patch adds additional data to match the packet.
>>
>> For example, in egress direction, to do an action depending on the VM
>> id, the application needs to configure rte_flow rule with the new
>> metadata pattern:
>> pattern meta data is {vm} / end action encap …
>> Then the PMD will send VM id as metadata associated in mbuf to NIC,
>> then egress flow on NIC match metadata as other regular packet headers,
>> the appropriate encapsulation is done according to the VM id metadata.
>>
>> Metadata could be used on ingress as well to save useful info before
>> flow modification (not defined yet) or decapsulation action. PMD is
>> responsible to save metadata into mbuf field. The application must get
>> metadata from the mbuf.
>>
>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
>> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
>> Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
>> ---
>> doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 7 +++++++
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c | 1 +
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
>> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
>> index b305a72a5..7989e5856 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
>> @@ -1191,6 +1191,13 @@ Normally preceded by any of:
>> - `Item: ICMP6_ND_NS`_
>> - `Item: ICMP6_ND_OPT`_
>>
>> +Item: ``META``
>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> +
>> +Matches a metadata variable.
>> +
>> +- ``data``: 64 bit value.
>> +
>
> Isn't this "user data" more than metadata?
>
> And there is only one userdata can be provided for a flow.
> Can there be a need to provide multiple userdata? Should we support it?
> For your example, on egress what if you want to do specific action on a flow
> for
> both VM id and process id, you can only pass single user data?
> What about passing a key-value pair?
Looks like a there is a new version of the patch:
https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/43684/
I will update status of this one as "Superseded" and continue with new one.
