Hi Xiao,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zh...@intel.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:06 PM
> To: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Wang, Ying A <ying.a.w...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
>
> Hi Ori,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:28 PM
> > To: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Wang, Ying A <ying.a.w...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> > <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>;
> sta...@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
> >
> > Hi Xiao,
> >
> > Is the proto_id part of the basic header or not?
>
> Proto_id is part of PPPOE session header,
>
Where is the porto_id located? Inside the payload?
> >
> > From the spec it looks like a different header.
> >
> > If it is part of the original header then all documentations and rte_structs
> should
> > be changed, to reflect this.
> >
> > It will be very helpful if the patch message would explain the bug and why
> > it
> was
> > changed.
>
> Okay, will add more message. The next value of the ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID
> should be unsigned value but not item list.
>
> >
> > Also please see inline other comment.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ori
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Xiao Zhang <xiao.zh...@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:19 AM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; ying.a.w...@intel.com;
> > > qi.z.zh...@intel.com; wei.zh...@intel.com; Xiao Zhang
> > > <xiao.zh...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
> > >
> > > The command line to create RTE flow for specific proto_id of PPPOES is
> > > not correct. This patch is to fix this issue.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 226c6e60c35b ("ethdev: add PPPoE to flow API")
> > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Zhang <xiao.zh...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 13 +++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > index a78154502..c25a2598d 100644
> > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > @@ -768,7 +768,6 @@ static const enum index next_item[] = {
> > > ITEM_GTP_PSC,
> > > ITEM_PPPOES,
> > > ITEM_PPPOED,
> > > - ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID,
> > > ITEM_HIGIG2,
> > > ITEM_TAG,
> > > ITEM_L2TPV3OIP,
> > > @@ -1030,11 +1029,6 @@ static const enum index item_pppoed[] = {
> > >
> > > static const enum index item_pppoes[] = {
> > > ITEM_PPPOE_SEID,
> > > - ITEM_NEXT,
> > > - ZERO,
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -static const enum index item_pppoe_proto_id[] = {
> > > ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID,
> > > ITEM_NEXT,
> > > ZERO,
> > > @@ -2643,10 +2637,9 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> > > [ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID] = {
> > > .name = "proto_id",
> > > .help = "match PPPoE session protocol identifier",
> > > - .priv = PRIV_ITEM(PPPOE_PROTO_ID,
> > > - sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id)),
> > > - .next = NEXT(item_pppoe_proto_id),
> > > - .call = parse_vc,
> > > + .next = NEXT(item_pppoes, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> > > item_param),
> > > + .args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON
> > > + (struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id, proto_id)),
> >
> > Where is the memory for this proto_id is defined?
>
> Do you mean this?
> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> 1360 struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id {
> 1361 rte_be16_t proto_id; /**< PPP protocol identifier. */
> 1362 };
>
Yes. Why don't you use this one?
> >
> > > },
> > > [ITEM_HIGIG2] = {
> > > .name = "higig2",
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
