Hi Andrew, > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:53 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta > data > > 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).
I think it should be added now, and more I think that this patch should add the missing function to all PMDs 😊 Best, Ori
