BR
Rongwei
________________________________
From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 23:03
To: rongwei liu <rongw...@nvidia.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>; Matan Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; Slava
Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; Suanming Mou
<suanmi...@nvidia.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnow...@nvidia.com>; Aman Singh
<aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; Ferruh
Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>; Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add VXLAN last reserved field
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
04/06/2024 14:38, Rongwei Liu:
> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ static const char *const flow_field_ids[] = {
> "ipv6_flow_label", "ipv6_traffic_class",
> "esp_spi", "esp_seq_num", "esp_proto",
> "random",
> + "vxlan_last_rsvd",
> NULL
> };
How vxlan_last_rsvd is linked to RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 in testpmd?
Just because it is the same order?
Consider the on-the-way VxLAN extension changes, the last reserved byte was
naming as "uint8_t rsvd1".
> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -2428,6 +2428,7 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id {
> RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_SEQ_NUM, /**< ESP Sequence Number. */
> RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_PROTO, /**< ESP next protocol value. */
> RTE_FLOW_FIELD_RANDOM, /**< Random value. */
> + RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1, /**< VXLAN last reserved byte. */
> };
I think we should use the same naming as in testpmd.
What about RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD?
To be honest, no strong objection per my personal thought. Considering the API
"vxlan_hdr" names this field as "uint8_t rsvd1", maybe
RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 will be clearer for user as 1 vs 1 mapping?
