30/10/2019 16:20, Olivier Matz: > > From: Slava Ovsiienko > > > > On 10/29/19 10:31 PM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > > > > > Currently, metadata can be set on egress path via mbuf tx_metadata > > > > > field with PKT_TX_METADATA flag and RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META > > > > matches metadata. > > > > > > > > > > This patch extends the metadata feature usability. > > > > > > > > > > 1) RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META > > > > > > > > > > When supporting multiple tables, Tx metadata can also be set by a > > > > > rule and matched by another rule. This new action allows metadata to > > > > > be set as a result of flow match. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Metadata on ingress > > > > > > > > > > There's also need to support metadata on ingress. Metadata can be > > > > > set by SET_META action and matched by META item like Tx. The final > > > > > value set by the action will be delivered to application via > > > > > metadata dynamic field of mbuf which can be accessed by > > > > > RTE_FLOW_DYNF_METADATA() macro or with > > > > > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_set() and rte_flow_dynf_metadata_get() helper > > > > > routines. PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag will be set along with the data. > > > > > > We have a problem with PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA/ > > > PKT_TX_DYNF_METADATA. > > > These ones are referencing to global variable > > > "rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask". > > > And there are routines in rte_mbuf.c (rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list) which show > > > the names of flags. It is not good if rte_mbuf.c would require including > > > of > > > rte_flow.h and linking rte_flow.c (not all apps use rte_flow or even > > > ethdev). > > > > > > What do you think? Should we rename rte_flow_dynf_xxxxx variables to > > > rte_mbuf_dynf_flow_metadata_xxxx and put ones into the rte_mbuf_dyn.c? > > > The same about PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA definition, is it candidate to > > > move to rte_mbuf_dyn.h ? It would allow not to link or include > > > rte_flow.c/h > > > into rte_mbuf.c > > > > > In rte_mbuf_dyn.c, we maintain a list of registered flags. I think it > wouldn't be too difficult to introduce the equivalent of > rte_get_*_ol_flag_list() and *rte_get_*_ol_flag_name() for dynamic > flags. There is already a dump function (which does both fields and > flags), and a lookup by name function. > > Maybe we could split the dump into fields and flags, and add a lookup by > offset/bitnum. Would it work for your use-case?
I think it would not be so useful. I propose to maintain the function rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list() only for static mbuf fields, and do not list the dynamic flags. In short, do nothing :)
