Hi Ori,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 6:19 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,
>
> > -----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?
Yes, my previous explanation was not clear. The protocol ID is in the beginning
of the payload in PPP Session Stage according to RFC2516.
1 2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VER | TYPE | CODE | SESSION_ID
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LENGTH | 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?
I think I was using this, am I using it incorrectly?
+ .args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON
+ (struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id, proto_id)),
>
> > >
> > > > },
> > > > [ITEM_HIGIG2] = {
> > > > .name = "higig2",
> > > > --
> > > > 2.17.1
