> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:19 PM
> To: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>;
> wenzhuo...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com; bernard.iremon...@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation
>
> On 11/20/2018 8:23 AM, Ori Kam wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Dekel Peled
> >> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:55 PM
> >> To: wenzhuo...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com;
> >> bernard.iremon...@intel.com
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler
> >> <shah...@mellanox.com>; Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation
> >>
> >> Set MPLS label value in appropriate location at mplsoudp_encap_conf,
> >> so it is correctly copied to rte_flow_item_mpls.
> >>
> >> Fixes: a1191d39cb57 ("app/testpmd: add MPLSoUDP encapsulation")
> >> Cc: or...@mellanox.com
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> >> ---
> >> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> >> index 1275074..40e64cc 100644
> >> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> >> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> >> @@ -15804,10 +15804,10 @@ static void
> >> cmd_set_mplsoudp_encap_parsed(void *parsed_result,
> >> struct cmd_set_mplsoudp_encap_result *res = parsed_result;
> >> union {
> >> uint32_t mplsoudp_label;
> >> - uint8_t label[3];
> >> + uint8_t label[4];
> >> } id = {
> >> .mplsoudp_label =
> >> - rte_cpu_to_be_32(res->label) & RTE_BE32(0x00ffffff),
> >> + rte_cpu_to_be_32(res->label<<4) &
> >> RTE_BE32(0x00ffffff),
> >> };
> >>
> >> if (strcmp(res->mplsoudp, "mplsoudp_encap") == 0)
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.1
> >
> > Acked-by: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>
>
> Hi Ori, Dekel,
>
> What is the scope of this patch? Briefly how critical it is and what will be
> broken and what is exposure of it?
The only issue is that we are setting incorrect MPLS label.
As defined by the MPLS spec the label is 20 bits, so this patch simply
pushes the label to the correct place.
I don't think that there any exposure from this patch.
Best,
Ori
