On 10/4/21 2:39 PM, Ivan Malov wrote: > On 04/10/2021 09:56, Ori Kam wrote: >>> On 04/10/2021 00:04, Ori Kam wrote: >>>> I understand that you are only talking about enabling the action, >>>> meaning to let the PMD know that at some point there will be a rule >>>> that will use the mark action for example. >>>> Is my understanding correct? >>> >>> Not really. The causal relationships are as follows. The application >>> comes to >>> realise that it will need to use, say, action MARK in flows. >>> This, in turn, means that, in order to be able to actually see the >>> mark in >>> received packets, the application needs to ensure that a) the NIC >>> will be able >>> to deliver the mark to the PMD and b) that the PMD will be able to >>> deliver >>> the mark to the application. In particular, in the case of Rx mark, >>> (b) doesn't >>> need to be negotiated = field "mark" is anyway provisioned in the mbuf >>> structure, so no need to enable it. But (a) needs to be negotiated. >>> Hence this >>> API. >>> >> Please see my above comment I think we both agree. > > Agree to have the 4-th flag in the new API to cover this "custom / raw > metdata" delivery? Personally, I tend to agree, but maybe Andrew can > express his opinion, too.
Of course, it could be added, but we're not going to support it in net/sfc. So, I think the flag should be added when a PMD will going to support it (e.g. net/mlx5).
