30/01/2024 12:25, Gavin Li:
> In this patch, all the VXLAN extension header will be merged with VXLAN as
> union if the overlapped field has different format among protocols. The
> existing VXLAN-GPE will be marked as deprecated and new extensions of
> VXLAN should be added to VXLAN instead of a new RTE item.
So VXLAN GPE, GBP, and original ones will all use the same struct.
Asking confirmation to other reviewers:
- do we want to deprecate specific VXLAN GPE?
- do we want to plan for VXLAN GPE removal?
[...]
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +* ethdev: The flow item ``RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE`` is replaced with
> ``RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN``.
> + The item ``RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE``, the struct
> ``rte_flow_item_vxlan_gpe``, its mask ``rte_flow_item_vxlan_gpe_mask``,
> + and the header struct ``rte_vxlan_gpe_hdr`` with the macro
> ``RTE_ETHER_VXLAN_GPE_HLEN``
> + will be removed in DPDK 25.11.
[...]
> @@ -38,8 +38,65 @@ struct rte_vxlan_hdr {
> rte_be32_t vx_vni; /**< VNI (24) + Reserved (8). */
> };
> struct {
> - uint8_t flags; /**< Should be 8 (I flag). */
> - uint8_t rsvd0[3]; /**< Reserved. */
> + union {
> + uint8_t flags; /**< Should be 8 (I flag).
> */
> + /* Flag bits defined by GPE */
> + struct {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t flag_o:1,
> + flag_b:1,
> + flag_p:1,
> + flag_i_gpe:1,
> + flag_ver:2,
> + rsvd_gpe:2;
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd_gpe:2,
> + flag_ver:2,
> + flag_i_gpe:1,
> + flag_p:1,
> + flag_b:1,
> + flag_o:1;
> +#endif
> + };
> + /* Flag bits defined by GBP */
> + struct {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd_gbp1:3,
> + flag_i_gbp:1,
> + rsvd_gbp2:3,
> + flag_g:1;
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t flag_g:1,
> + rsvd_gbp1:3,
> + flag_i_gbp:1,
> + rsvd_gbp2:3;
> +#endif
> + };
> + };
> + union {
> + uint8_t rsvd0[3]; /**< Reserved. */
> + /* Overlap with rte_vxlan_gpe_hdr which is
> deprecated.*/
> + struct {
> + uint8_t rsvd0_gpe[2]; /**< Reserved. */
> + uint8_t proto; /**< Next protocol.
> */
> + };
> + struct {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd0_gbp1:3,
> + policy_applied:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp2:2,
> + dont_learn:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp3:1;
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint8_t rsvd0_gbp1:1,
> + dont_learn:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp2:2,
> + policy_applied:1,
> + rsvd0_gbp3:3;
> +#endif
> + uint16_t policy_id;
> + };
> + };
> uint8_t vni[3]; /**< VXLAN identifier. */
> uint8_t rsvd1; /**< Reserved. */
> };
Naming looks OK.
Any different opinion?
