Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] net/i40e: support flexible payload parsing for FDIR

[Xing, Beilei]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3:46 PM
> To: Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin
> <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] net/i40e: support flexible payload
> parsing for FDIR
> 
> Hi Beilei,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Beilei Xing
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:10 PM
> > To: Zhang, Helin; Wu, Jingjing
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] net/i40e: support flexible payload
> > parsing for FDIR
> >
> > This patch adds flexible payload parsing support for flow director filter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.h |  23 ++++
> >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c   |  19 ---
> >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_flow.c   | 298
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  3 files changed, 317 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> > +
> > +static int
> > +i40e_flow_store_flex_pit(struct i40e_pf *pf,
> > +                    struct i40e_fdir_flex_pit *flex_pit,
> > +                    enum i40e_flxpld_layer_idx layer_idx,
> > +                    uint8_t raw_id)
> > +{
> > +   uint8_t field_idx;
> > +
> > +   field_idx = layer_idx * I40E_MAX_FLXPLD_FIED + raw_id;
> > +   /* Check if the configuration is conflicted */
> > +   if (pf->fdir.flex_pit_flag[layer_idx] &&
> > +       (pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].src_offset != flex_pit->src_offset ||
> > +        pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].size != flex_pit->size ||
> > +        pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].dst_offset != flex_pit->dst_offset))
> > +           return -1;
> > +
> > +   if (pf->fdir.flex_pit_flag[layer_idx] &&
> > +       (pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].src_offset == flex_pit->src_offset &&
> > +        pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].size == flex_pit->size &&
> > +        pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].dst_offset == flex_pit->dst_offset))
> > +           return 1;
> Is this check necessary? Don't find a specific handling for this return value.
> If it's necessary, would you like to add some comments about this check?


Thanks for catching it, I think it can be deleted, will update in next version.

> 
> > +
> > +   pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].src_offset =
> > +           flex_pit->src_offset;
> > +   pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].size =
> > +           flex_pit->size;
> > +   pf->fdir.flex_set[field_idx].dst_offset =
> > +           flex_pit->dst_offset;
> > +
> > +   return 0;
> > +}