> -----Original Message----- > From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:03 AM > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; Shahaf Shuler > <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type identification > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:27:37PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:48 PM > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; Shahaf Shuler > > > <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz > > > <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > > identification > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:32:49PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 5:28 PM > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; Shahaf Shuler > > > > > <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz > > > > > <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > > > > identification > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 08:05:13AM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:29 PM > > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > > > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; Adrien Mazarguil > > > > > > > <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel > > > > > > > type identification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 12:57:58PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +Adrien > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:03 PM > > > > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > > > > > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx > > > > > > > > > tunnel type identification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Olivier, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 07:20:13PM +0800, Xueming Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This patch introduced tunnel type identification based on > > > > > > > > > > flow rules. > > > > > > > > > > If flows of multiple tunnel types built on same queue, > > > > > > > > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK will be returned, user > > > > > > > > > > application could use bits in flow mark as tunnel type > > > > > > > > > > identifier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For an application it will mean the packet embed all > > > > > > > > > tunnel types defined in DPDK, to make such thing you > > > > > > > > > need a RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN which does not exists > > > > > > > > > currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN definition, but > > > > > > > > removed due to > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > So I think it good to add it in the patchset of reviewed by > > > > > > > > Adrien. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even with it, the application still needs to parse the > > > > > > > > > packet to discover which tunnel the packet embed, is > > > > > > > > > there any benefit having such bit? Not so sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With a tunnel flag, checksum status represent inner checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure this is generic enough, MLX5 behaves as this, but > > > > > > > how behaves other NICs? It should have specific bits for > > > > > > > inner checksum if all NIC don't have the same behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > From my understanding, if outer checksum invalid, the packet > > > > > > can't be received as a tunneled packet, but a normal packet, > > > > > > thus checksum flags always result of inner for a valid tunneled > > > > > > packet. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, since checksum validation information covers all layers at > > > > > once (outermost to the innermost recognized), the presence of an > > > > > "unknown tunnel" > > > > > bit implicitly means outer headers are OK. > > > > > > > > > > Now regarding the addition of RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN, the main > > > > > issue I see is that it's implicit, as in getting 0 after and'ing > > > > > packet types with RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK means either not present or > > > > > unknown type. > > > > > > > > How about define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN same ask > > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK? And'ding packet types always return a non-zero > > > > value. > > > > > > I mean the value already exists, it's implicitly 0. Adding one with > > > the same value as RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK could be seen as a waste of > > > a value otherwise usable for an actual tunnel type (there are only 4 > > > bits). > > > > > > > > How about not setting any tunnel bit and let applications rely > > > > > on the presence of RTE_PTYPE_INNER_* to determine that there is > > > > > a tunnel of unknown type? The rationale being that a tunneled > > > > > packet without an inner payload is > > > kind of pointless anyway. > > > > > > > > An unknown type doesn't break anything, neither enum bits, > > > > straightforward IMHO. > > > > > > Keep in mind that mbuf packet types report what is identified. All > > > the definitions in this file name a specific protocol. For instance > > > there is no such definition as "L3 present" or "L4 present". "Tunnel > > > present" doesn't make a lot > of sense on its own either. > > > > > > Don't you agree that reporting at least one inner ptype while > > > leaving tunnel ptype to 0 automatically addresses this issue? > > > > Currently, no inner L2 ptype, so for packet with only L2, it will be > > recognized as non-tunnel packet. > > Applications can live with it. Don't bother with a ptype API change at this > point, it raises more > issues than it solves. > > Given the size of the series, let's deal with that later through a separate > task and according to user > feedback.
Nelio, so I'll leave it as it is, are you okay with it? > > -- > Adrien Mazarguil > 6WIND
