On 1/4/2017 2:43 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: > > On 12/20/2016 2:13 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > NFP is a smart programmable NIC and firmware is deployed for specific > > system needs, like offloading OVS, vRouter, contrack or eBPF into the > > hardware. This often requires to give metadata to the host within > > packets delivered. Last NFP firmware implementations support richer > > metadata api facilitating interaction between firmware and host code. > > > > Old way of handling metadata needs to be still there for supporting > > old firmware. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com > <mailto:alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>> > > --- > > <...> > > > + > > + } else if (NFP_DESC_META_LEN(rxd)) { > > + meta_offset = (uint8_t *)mbuf->buf_addr; > > + meta_info = rte_be_to_cpu_32(*(uint32_t *)meta_offset); > > + meta_offset += 4; > > + /* NFP PMD just supports metadata for hashing */ > > + switch (meta_info & NFP_NET_META_FIELD_MASK) { > > + case NFP_NET_META_HASH: > > + meta_info >>= NFP_NET_META_FIELD_SIZE; > > + hash = rte_be_to_cpu_32(*(uint32_t *)meta_offset); > > + hash_type = meta_info && NFP_NET_META_FIELD_MASK; > > I already applied this patch but above "&&" looks wrong. > Most probably intention is "bitwise AND" (&), do you want me fix this as > "&" or remove the patch completely to replace with new version? > > > Yes, that is wrong. I wonder how related tests did not fail. I'll check > that right now. > > Maybe it is better to wait for another patch version or at least to be > sure that simple change is good enough. > Let me to peer into those tests and re-run them with that fix applied.
Removed from next-net, patchwork status updated as "Change Requested". > > > Thanks, > ferruh > >
