On 11/22/2018 4:18 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The current implementation is already validated, and since this is the last
> minute I prefer my patch to be applied as-is.
> Please ack.
Hi Dekel,
I think logic is other-way around, a patch has been acked clearly, without
question can justify to go in last minute. Going last minute doesn't justify an
ack.
>
> Regards,
> Dekel
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:14 PM
>> To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
>> Cc: wenzhuo...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com;
>> bernard.iremon...@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam
>> <or...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:56:09AM +0000, Dekel Peled wrote:
>>> Thanks, PSB.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:05 AM
>>>> To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
>>>> Cc: wenzhuo...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com;
>>>> bernard.iremon...@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam
>>>> <or...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP
>>>> encapsulation
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:54:50PM +0200, Dekel Peled wrote:
>>>>> 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),
>>>>
>>>> Just to be sure, since label is a 20-bit value, isn't the shift
>>>> supposed to be 12 bits? In which case that mask is harmless but
>> misleading. How about:
>>>>
>>>> .mplsoudp_label = rte_cpu_to_be32((res->label & 0xfffff) << 12);
>>>>
>>>
>>> Label is 20-bits value in a 24-bits field, see struct rte_flow_item_mpls.
>>
>> OK, I know, what I missed was the following line:
>>
>> rte_memcpy(mplsoudp_encap_conf.label, &id.label[1], 3);
>>
>> Just a suggestion then: using the same memcpy() offsets in both places for
>> clarity:
>>
>> rte_be32_t label = rte_cpu_to_be32(res->label << 12);
>>
>> memcpy(mplsodudp_encap_conf.label, &label, 3);
>>
>> --
>> Adrien Mazarguil
>> 6WIND
