> -----Original Message----- > From: Michal Miroslaw [mailto:mirq-li...@rere.qmqm.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:53 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 02:14:19PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > -----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'. > > Dear Konstantin, > > Can you describe how the ACL code treats zero specially? I could not find > anything, really. The only thing I found is that iff I use zero userdata > in a rule I won't be able to differentiate a case where it matched from > a case where no rule matched.
Yes, that's what I am talking about. > If I all my rules have non-zero userdata, > then this patch changes nothing. Ok, then why do you remove a code that does checking for invalid userdata==0? That supposed to prevent user to setup invalid value by mistake. But if I have a table where 0 means drop > (default-drop policy) then being able to use zero userdata in DROP rules > makes the ACLs just that more useful. Ok, and what prevents you from do +1 to your policy values before you insert it into the ACL table and -1 after you retrieved it via rte_acl_classify()? Konstantin
