-----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:34:36 -0700 > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type > > External Email > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:29:05 +0530 > Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:31:10 -0700 > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > > > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type > > > > > > External Email > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 18:08:35 +0530 > > > Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Add support for IGMP packet type. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > > > > > > Could you add logic to recoginize IGMP to the software packet type > > > identification > > > rte_net_get_ptype used by drivers that don't have hardware support. > > > > If everyone agrees then I can do it as adding IGMP support will reduce > > the performance of rte_net_get_ptype() and most of the NIC may not need it. > > > > Opinions? > > > > > > > > Also shouldn't this bit be part of RTE_PTYPE_L4_MASK? > > > > The RTE_PTYPE_L4_MASK is 0x00000f00 so it is part it. Right? > > Then you must add it to the software matcher since most drivers are > advertising L4_MASK
Which driver returns .dev_supported_ptypes_get ethdev ops with L4_MASK? >
