But if the user want to force only one vlan and don't care about others?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:54 AM > To: Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com>; ferruh.yi...@intel.com; > arybche...@solarflare.com; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; Thomas > Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: Asaf Penso <as...@mellanox.com>; Matan Azrad > <ma...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [RFC] ethdev: add VLAN attributes to ETH item > > Thanks, PSB. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 6:47 PM > > To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>; ferruh.yi...@intel.com; > > arybche...@solarflare.com; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; Thomas > > Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > Cc: Asaf Penso <as...@mellanox.com>; Matan Azrad > <ma...@mellanox.com>; > > dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [RFC] ethdev: add VLAN attributes to ETH item > > > > > > On 8/4/2020 6:36 PM, Dekel Peled wrote: > > > In existing code the match on tagged/untagged packets is not explicit. > > > Recent documentation update [1] describes the different patterns and > > > clarifies the intended use of different patterns. > > > > > > This patch proposes an update to ETH item struct, to clearly define > > > the required characteristic of a packet, and enable precise match > > > criteria. > > > > > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-May/166257.html > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com> > > > --- > > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 9 +++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h index cf0eccb..345feb5 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > @@ -726,11 +726,20 @@ struct rte_flow_item_raw { > > > * If the @p ETH item is the only item in the pattern, and the @p type > field > > > * is not specified, then both tagged and untagged packets will match > the > > > * pattern. > > > + * The fields @p cvlan_exist and @p svlan_exist can be used to > > > + match specific > > > + * packet types, instead of using the @p type field. This can be > > > + used to match > > > + * on packets that do/don't contain either cvlan, svlan, or both. > > > + * The field @p num_of_vlans can be used to match packets by the > > > + exact number > > > + * of VLANs in header. > > > */ > > > struct rte_flow_item_eth { > > > struct rte_ether_addr dst; /**< Destination MAC. */ > > > struct rte_ether_addr src; /**< Source MAC. */ > > > rte_be16_t type; /**< EtherType or TPID. */ > > > + uint32_t cvlan_exist:1; /**< C-tag VLAN exist in header. */ > > > + uint32_t svlan_exist:1; /**< S-tag VLAN exist in header. */ > > > + uint32_t reserved:14; /**< Reserved, must be zero. */ > > > + uint32_t num_of_vlans:16; /**< Number of VLANs in header. */ > > We can deduct from num_of_vlans the values of cvlan_exist/svlan_exist, > > so those are redundant fields. Keeping them introduce a conflicting > > match. For example num_of_vlans=0 and cvlan_exist=1. > > Such conflict is simple to validate and reject. > Even if num_of_vlans is removed, we can still get conflict svlan_exist=1, > cvlan_exist=0. > The different fields are proposed to allow flexible match on different VLAN > attributes. > Every PMD can choose to support any or none of them. > > > > }; > > > > > > /** Default mask for RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH. */
