On 1/31/2024 3:56 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
> Hi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 4:48 AM
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 1:34 AM
>>> To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam
>> <or...@nvidia.com>;
>>> Aman Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
>>> <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)
>>> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Andrew Rybchenko
>>> <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] ethdev: add compare item
>>>
>>> On 1/15/2024 9:13 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
>>>> The new item type is added for the case user wants to match traffic
>>>> based on packet field compare result with other fields or immediate
>>>> value.
>>>>
>>>> e.g. take advantage the compare item user will be able to accumulate a
>>>> IPv4/TCP packet's TCP data_offset and IPv4 IHL field to a tag
>>>> register, then compare the tag register with IPv4 header total length
>>>> to understand the packet has payload or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ack, above sample makes it easier to understand.
>>>
>>> This patch is adding testpmd commands, can you please provide some
>> sample
>>> commands in commit log?
>>> The more samples are better, as far as I remember there was a testpmd
>>> documentation that documents the sample usages, can you please check
>> for it?
>
> [Snip ..]
>
>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * @warning
>>>> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Field description for packet field.
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct rte_flow_field_data {
>>>> + enum rte_flow_field_id field; /**< Field or memory type ID. */
>>>> + union {
>>>> + struct {
>>>> + /** Encapsulation level and tag index or flex item
>>> handle. */
>>>> + union {
>>>> + struct {
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Packet encapsulation level
>> containing
>>>> + * the field to modify.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * - @p 0 requests the default
>> behavior.
>>>> + * Depending on the packet type, it
>>>> + * can mean outermost, innermost
>> or
>>>> + * anything in between.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * It basically stands for the
>>>> + * innermost encapsulation level.
>>>> + * Modification can be performed
>>>> + * according to PMD and device
>>>> + * capabilities.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * - @p 1 requests modification to be
>>>> + * performed on the outermost
>> packet
>>>> + * encapsulation level.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * - @p 2 and subsequent values
>>> request
>>>> + * modification to be performed on
>>>> + * the specified inner packet
>>>> + * encapsulation level, from
>>>> + * outermost to innermost (lower to
>>>> + * higher values).
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Values other than @p 0 are not
>>>> + * necessarily supported.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @note that for MPLS field,
>>>> + * encapsulation level also include
>>>> + * tunnel since MPLS may appear in
>>>> + * outer, inner or tunnel.
>>>> + */
>>>> + uint8_t level;
>>>> + union {
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Tag index array inside
>>>> + * encapsulation level.
>>>> + * Used for VLAN, MPLS or
>> TAG
>>> types.
>>>> + */
>>>> + uint8_t tag_index;
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Geneve option identifier.
>>>> + * Relevant only for
>>>> + *
>>> RTE_FLOW_FIELD_GENEVE_OPT_XXXX
>>>> + * modification type.
>>>> + */
>>>> + struct {
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Geneve option
>> type.
>>>> + */
>>>> + uint8_t type;
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Geneve option
>> class.
>>>> + */
>>>> + rte_be16_t class_id;
>>>> + };
>>>> + };
>>>> + };
>>>> + struct rte_flow_item_flex_handle
>> *flex_handle;
>>>> + };
>>>> + /** Number of bits to skip from a field. */
>>>> + uint32_t offset;
>>>> + };
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Immediate value for RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VALUE, presented
>> in
>>> the
>>>> + * same byte order and length as in relevant
>> rte_flow_item_xxx.
>>>> + * The immediate source bitfield offset is inherited from
>>>> + * the destination's one.
>>>> + */
>>>> + uint8_t value[16];
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Memory address for RTE_FLOW_FIELD_POINTER, memory
>>> layout
>>>> + * should be the same as for relevant field in the
>>>> + * rte_flow_item_xxx structure.
>>>> + */
>>>> + void *pvalue;
>>>> + };
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am aware that you are just moving the above struct, but it is nested too
>> much
>>> which is making it hard to read.
>>>
>>> As you are touching it, can we extract some structs and make this struct
>>> less
>>> nested, what do you think?
>>> Of course it needs to be done in separate patch, as a preperation/clean-up
>> patch
>>> before moving it around.
>>
>> Agree the struct maybe a bit nested. But not sure how it was discussed
>> before during the last new member was added... @Ori, Do you have any idea
>> about this?
>>
>
> As far as I remember, it was never discussed,
>
> I think for this series we should keep it as is, and revise it later.
>
If you don't want to make this set more complex with this, that is OK as
long as it is addressed at some point.
> Best,
> Ori
>> And if it is really expected, I believe another new thread is worth for that
>> change, better not be in that series.
>> Need to discuss the new struct name and other stuff. What do you think?
>>
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + *
>>>> + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_COMPARE
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Matches the packet with compare result.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * The operation means a compare with b result.
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct rte_flow_item_compare {
>>>> + enum rte_flow_item_compare_op operation; /* The compare
>> operation.
>>> */
>>>> + struct rte_flow_field_data a; /* Field be compared. */
>>>> + struct rte_flow_field_data b; /* Field as comparator. */
>>>>
>>>
>>> Variable names 'a' and 'b' are not descriptive although it may be OK since
>> there is
>>> no significance to the values, but other option can be 'first' and 'second',
>> but
>>> overall not strong opinion.
>>
>> Yes, thanks for the suggestion, in fact we also discussed about the name a
>> lot,
>> finally we choose the widely used 'a' and 'b'
>>
>> Thanks
>
