Thanks Cristian.
Will change it in V7 patch.
Regards,
Li Zhang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:16 AM
> To: Li Zhang <l...@nvidia.com>; dek...@nvidia.com; Ori Kam
> <or...@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Matan
> Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@nvidia.com>;
> lir...@marvell.com; jer...@marvell.com; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com; Wisam Monther
> <wis...@nvidia.com>; Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; Singh,
> Jasvinder <jasvinder.si...@intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Andrew Rybchenko
> <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; Neil
> Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>;
> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@nvidia.com>; Roni Bar Yanai
> <ron...@nvidia.com>; Haifei Luo <haif...@nvidia.com>; Jiawei(Jonny) Wang
> <jiaw...@nvidia.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: add pre-defined meter policy API
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Hi Li,
>
> Following the API changes, there are lots of changes in the drivers, as
> expected, so we'll have to take the necessary time to review them.
>
> Here are just a few comments below, please expect more during the next
> few days.
>
> <snip>
>
> > +
> > +/* MTR meter policy add */
> > +static int
> > +pmd_mtr_meter_policy_add(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > + uint32_t meter_policy_id,
> > + struct rte_mtr_meter_policy_params *policy,
> > + struct rte_mtr_error *error)
> > +{
> > + struct pmd_internals *p = dev->data->dev_private;
> > + struct softnic_mtr_meter_policy_list *mpl = &p-
> > >mtr.meter_policies;
> > + struct softnic_mtr_meter_policy *mp;
> > + const struct rte_flow_action *act;
> > + const struct rte_flow_action_meter_color *recolor;
> > + uint32_t i;
> > +
> > + /* Meter policy ID must be valid. */
> > + if (meter_policy_id == UINT32_MAX)
> > + return -rte_mtr_error_set(error,
> > + EINVAL,
> > + RTE_MTR_ERROR_TYPE_METER_POLICY_ID,
> > + NULL,
> > + "Meter policy id not valid");
>
> This is obviously not correct, we need to check whether the meter_policy_id
> provided by the user is already in use (by a policy previously added) or not.
> You can do this with the policy find function that you have already
> implemented.
>
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < RTE_COLORS; i++) {
> > + act = policy->actions[i];
> > + if (act && act->type !=
> > RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_METER_COLOR &&
> > + act->type != RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DROP)
> > + return -rte_mtr_error_set(error,
> > + EINVAL,
> > + RTE_MTR_ERROR_TYPE_METER_POLICY,
> > + NULL,
> > + "Action invalid");
> > + }
>
> This check does not look right either: obviously we cannot accept a null
> action list for any color, plus the action list should contain only those
> action
> types we support (RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_METER_COLOR or
> RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DROP).
>
> I agree, fist you need to check that the linked list of policy actions for
> each
> color is non-NULL, then you need to traverse it until you meet the END
> action, skip any PAD actions, then check that exactly one (and one only) of
> METER_COLOR or DROP exist, but not both at the same time, and also we
> don't have the same action showing up multiple times. Makes sense?
>
> Regards,
> Cristian
