> -----Original Message----- > From: Michal Miroslaw [mailto:mirq-li...@rere.qmqm.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:55 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] acl: allow zero verdict > > 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.
With that chane rte_acl_classify() might produce invalid results. Even if you don't need it (I still don't understand how) , it doesn't mean other people don't need it either and it is ok to change it. > > 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. I believe it does. userdata==0 is a reserved value. When rte_acl_clasify() returns 0 for that particular input, it means 'no matches were found'. Konstantin
