On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 04:48:26PM +0000, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > The dynamic mbuf fields were introduced by [1]. The egress metadata is > good candidate to be moved from statically allocated field tx_metadata to > dynamic one. Because mbufs are used in half-duplex fashion only, it is > safe to share this dynamic field with ingress metadata. > > The shared dynamic field contains either egress (if application going to > transmit mbuf with tx_burst) or ingress (if mbuf is received with rx_burst) > metadata and 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_TX_DYNF_METADATA/PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag will be set > along with the data. > > The mbuf dynamic field must be registered by calling > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() prior accessing the data. > > The availability of dynamic mbuf metadata field can be checked with > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_avail() routine. > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MATCH_METADATA offload and configuration flag is removed. > The metadata support in PMDs is engaged on dynamic field registration. > > Metadata feature is getting complex. We might have some set of actions > and items that might be supported by PMDs in multiple combinations, > the supported values and masks are the subjects to query by perfroming > trials (with rte_flow_validate). > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/62040/ > > Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com> > Acked-by: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
