On 9/23/20 8:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 9/22/2020 10:33 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > <...> > >> + >> +/***********************************/ >> +/* MC_CMD_VNIC_ENCAP_RULE_ADD >> + * Add a rule for detecting encapsulations in the VNIC stage. >> Currently this only affects checksum validation in VNIC RX - on TX >> the send descriptor explicitly specifies encapsulation. These rules >> are per-VNIC, i.e. only apply to the current driver. If a rule >> matches, then the packet is considered to have the corresponding >> encapsulation type, and the inner packet is parsed. It is up to the >> driver to ensure that overlapping rules are not inserted. (If a >> packet would match multiple rules, a random one of them will be >> used.) A rule with the exact same match criteria may not be inserted >> twice (EALREADY). Only a limited number MATCH_FLAGS values are >> supported, use MC_CMD_GET_PARSER_DISP_INFO with OP >> OP_GET_SUPPORTED_VNIC_ENCAP_RULE_MATCHES to get a list of supported >> combinations. Each driver may only have a limited set of active rules >> - returns ENOSPC if the caller's table is full. > > > > We are allowing base files to keep their original syntax (as long as > it is consistent within), but whole above comment as single line looks > a little excessive, can you please fix it? > >> + >> +/***********************************/ >> +/* MC_CMD_VNIC_ENCAP_RULE_REMOVE >> + * Remove a VNIC encapsulation rule. Packets which would have >> previously matched the rule will then be considered as >> unencapsulated. Returns EALREADY if the input HANDLE doesn't >> correspond to an existing rule. >> + */ > ditto >
Will be fixed in v3. Thanks.
