hi, Ori
On 4/12/2020 5:58 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Jeff,
For some reason I got the mail in HTML format
So please see my comments marked by [Ori]
Thanks,
Ori
*From:* Jeff Guo <jia....@intel.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 7, 2020 8:37 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, Ori
On 4/5/2020 11:56 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Jeff,
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Guo<jia....@intel.com> <mailto:jia....@intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:50 AM
To: Ori Kam<or...@mellanox.com>
<mailto:or...@mellanox.com>;xiaolong...@intel.com <mailto:xiaolong...@intel.com>;
qi.z.zh...@intel.com <mailto:qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
Cc:dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>;jingjing...@intel.com
<mailto:jingjing...@intel.com>;yahui....@intel.com <mailto:yahui....@intel.com>;
simei...@intel.com <mailto:simei...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 3/4] app/testpmd: support GTP PDU
type
yes, Ori, please check the comment below.
On 3/30/2020 6:18 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
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> <mailto:jia....@intel.com>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:30 AM
To: Ori Kam<or...@mellanox.com>
<mailto:or...@mellanox.com>;xiaolong...@intel.com <mailto:xiaolong...@intel.com>;
qi.z.zh...@intel.com <mailto:qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
Cc:dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>;jingjing...@intel.com
<mailto:jingjing...@intel.com>;yahui....@intel.com <mailto:yahui....@intel.com>;
simei...@intel.com <mailto: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>
<mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Guo
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 6:41 PM
To:xiaolong...@intel.com
<mailto:xiaolong...@intel.com>;qi.z.zh...@intel.com
<mailto:qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
Cc:dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>;jingjing...@intel.com
<mailto:jingjing...@intel.com>;yahui....@intel.com <mailto:yahui....@intel.com>;
simei...@intel.com
<mailto:simei...@intel.com>;jia....@intel.com <mailto: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.
please check the part before this patch as below:
       [ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T] = {
               .name = "pdu_t",
               .help = "PDU type",
              .next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
item_param),
sure, we got the ITEM_GTP_PSC_PDU_T at prior but the NEXT_ENTRY is
UNSIGNED, that means we still not implement
Sorry I don't understand your comment, what do you mean it is not
implemented?
Yes it means that the parameter is should be unsigned value.
I mean that if it is a unsigned value, user could not set the pdu_t to
be a 0 or 1, or any other we
define for that.
the spec to let the pdu type to be configurable, so what the patch do is
to fix this issue.
What do you mean configurable?
Lets start at the beginning, maybe I'm just missing some key point.
What is the PDU type? What values can he hold?
How do you want the command to look like?
the command should be like as below
flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 / udp / gtpu / gtp_psc pdu_t
is 0/ ipv4 / end actions rss types ipv4-udp l3-dst-only end key_len
0queues end / end
It is eventually the same as you described about the command before.Â
User could set pdu_t to be 0 or 1, so what is need is modify
NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED) to be "SIGNED" and defined.
[Ori]Â I agree about the command look.
Can  pdu_t can be only 0 or 1?
Also I don’t understand why you need signed? Even if you add the
GTP_PSC_PDU_T as int? and not unsinged?
All other items are unsinged. I also don’t see any reason to create
the new type unless, you want the help line.
In any case, I feel that this patch already waste a lot of time.
(for both of us)
Please consider again if the new class is necessary, and if it should
be signed.
If so you have my ack.
Acked-by: Ori Kam or...@mellanox.com <mailto:or...@mellanox.com>
Best,
I guess i know your meaning now, and after check it again, what we
though is the same but the new class is absolutely not necessary,
you are totally right here Ori, thanks for your targeting it and good
review.
Ori
Signed-off-by: Jeff Guo<jia....@intel.com>
<mailto: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] = {
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .name = "{GTPU pdu type}",
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .type = "INTEGER",
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .help = "gtpu pdu uplink/downlink identifier",
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .call = parse_int,
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .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",
-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc,
NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
item_param),
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .next = NEXT(item_gtp_psc,
NEXT_ENTRY(GTP_PSC_PDU_T),
+Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â item_param),
               .args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON(struct
rte_flow_item_gtp_psc,
                                      pdu_type)),
       },
--
2.20.1
