> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Barbette <barbe...@kth.se>
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:51 PM
> To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: or...@mellanox.com; Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_flow: Different devices have different field
> indianess?
>
> Le 27/03/2020 à 15:44, Andrew Rybchenko a écrit :
> > On 3/27/20 5:29 PM, Tom Barbette wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> It seems rte_flow_item_eth takes its ethertype in host byte order
> >> with i40e, but in network byte order with mlx5.
> >
> > If so, it is definitely bug in i40e, since struct rte_flow_item_eth
> > defines type as rte_be16_t type.
>
> Indeed, with testpmd I would expect the first one to be the one that works:
>
> testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth type is 0x0800 / end actions
> mark id 5 / end
> port_flow_complain(): Caught PMD error type 13 (specific pattern item):
> cause: 0x227fd75540, Unsupported ether_type.: Invalid argument
> testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth type is 0x0008 / end actions
> mark id 5 / end
> Flow rule #0 created
>
It's not a bug, but HW limitation.
Only FDIR supports mark action, but i40e FDIR doesn't support filter with eth
type 0x0800.
Please refer to the following
ether_type = rte_be_to_cpu_16(eth_spec->type);
if (next_type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VLAN ||
ether_type == RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPV4 ||
ether_type == RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPV6 ||
ether_type == RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ARP ||
ether_type == outer_tpid) {
rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
item,
"Unsupported ether_type.");
return -rte_errno;
}
Beilei
>
> >
> >> Wouldn't it be nice to unify that? Else is there a way to know in
> >> which byte order the spec should be given? I guess that expands to
> >> all fields, but I only compared the ethertype field.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Tom
> >
