On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:36:16AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Hi Michal, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michal Miroslaw > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:08 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] acl: allow zero verdict > > > > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <michal.miros...@atendesoftware.pl> > > --- > > lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.c | 3 +-- > > lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h | 2 -- > > lib/librte_table/rte_table_acl.c | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.c b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.c > > index 8b7e92c..d1f40be 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.c > > @@ -313,8 +313,7 @@ acl_check_rule(const struct rte_acl_rule_data *rd) > > if ((RTE_LEN2MASK(RTE_ACL_MAX_CATEGORIES, typeof(rd->category_mask)) & > > rd->category_mask) == 0 || > > rd->priority > RTE_ACL_MAX_PRIORITY || > > - rd->priority < RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY || > > - rd->userdata == RTE_ACL_INVALID_USERDATA) > > + rd->priority < RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY) > > return -EINVAL; > > return 0; > > } > > I am not sure, how it supposed to work properly? > Zero value is reserved and ifnicates that no match were found for that input. This is actually in use by us. In our use we don't need to differentiate matching a rule with zero verdict vs not matching a rule at all. I also have a patch that changes the value returned in non-matching case, but it's in "dirty hack" state, as of yet.
The ACL code does not treat zero userdata specially, so this is only a policy choice and as such would be better to be made by the user. Best Regards, Michał Mirosław
