Hi Jeff,
My name is Ori 😊
I'm not an expert in GTP so this is just my thinking and maybe I'm
missing something, this is why a good explanation helps 😊
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Guo <jia....@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:30 AM
> To: Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; xiaolong...@intel.com;
> qi.z.zh...@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jingjing...@intel.com; yahui....@intel.com;
> simei...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU type
>
> hi, orika
>
>
> On 3/29/2020 4:44 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Guo
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 6:41 PM
> >> To: xiaolong...@intel.com; qi.z.zh...@intel.com
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jingjing...@intel.com; yahui....@intel.com;
> >> simei...@intel.com; jia....@intel.com
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU type
> >>
> >> Add gtp pdu type configure in the cmdline.
> > Why not use ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU?
>
>
> I guess you mean ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T, rihgt? We know we have got
> ITEM_GTP_PSC_QFI/ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T but not define the
>
> spec for them, so what i use is add the spec into the ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T
> to let the pdu type to be configured.
>
Yes you are correct, from rte_flow we have the RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GTP_PSC
Item that include pdu_type. This is the field you need right?
In testpmd we have the ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T which should support adding
the pdu type.
Basically you just need to type the following cmd line:
flow create 0 ingress pattern gtp_psc pdu_t is xxx
if this command is not working we need to understand why.
>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Guo <jia....@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> v1:
> >> no change
> >> ---
> >> app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >> index a78154502..c1bd02919 100644
> >> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ enum index {
> >> PORT_ID,
> >> GROUP_ID,
> >> PRIORITY_LEVEL,
> >> + GTP_PSC_PDU_T,
> >>
> >> /* Top-level command. */
> >> SET,
> >> @@ -1626,6 +1627,13 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> >> .call = parse_int,
> >> .comp = comp_none,
> >> },
> >> + [GTP_PSC_PDU_T] = {
> >> + .name = "{GTPU pdu type}",
> >> + .type = "INTEGER",
> >> + .help = "gtpu pdu uplink/downlink identifier",
> >> + .call = parse_int,
> >> + .comp = comp_none,
> >> + },
> > Why is this created at this level?
> > This looks like is should be written totally differently.
>
>
> As i said above, the item we got but spec or say next token still need
> to be added, do you mean it should not in the group of Common tokens? If
> so, let me think about that, and please explicit your proposal if you
> already have one.
>
Please see above response.
>
> >> /* Top-level command. */
> >> [FLOW] = {
> >> .name = "flow",
> >> @@ -2615,7 +2623,8 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> >> [ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T] = {
> >> .name = "pdu_t",
> >> .help = "PDU type",
> >> - .next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> >> item_param),
> >> + .next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc, NEXT_ENTRY(GTP_PSC_PDU_T),
> >> + item_param),
> >> .args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON(struct
> >> rte_flow_item_gtp_psc,
> >> pdu_type)),
> >> },
> >> --
> >> 2.20.1
