> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] ethdev: add compare item
>
> 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.
Agree,
If you have suggestions, I will be more than happy to hear.
>
> > 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
> >
