On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:10:11AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:04 PM, Adrien Mazarguil: > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ethdev: add mark flow item to flow > > item types > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:04:21PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote: > > > Introduces a new action type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_MARK which enables > > > flow patterns to specify arbitrary integer values to match aginst > > > > Typo on "aginst". > > > > > which are set by the RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK action in a > > previously > > > matched flow from a higher prioriry group. > > > > prioriry => priority, however this last addition is unnecessary, it could > > be any > > prior flow rule that happens to use PASSTHRU. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.dohe...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 28 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > index 325010544..6f23ad909 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > @@ -598,6 +598,34 @@ associated with a port_id should be retrieved by > > other means. > > > | ``mask`` | ``index`` | zeroed to match any port index | > > > +----------+-----------+--------------------------------+ > > > > > > +Item: ``MARK`` > > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > + > > > +Matches packets coming from a previously matched flow in a higher > > > +priority group > > > > See above re "higher priority group". > > > > > +with an arbitrary integer value which was set using the ``MARK`` > > > +action in the previously matched rule. > > > + > > Why we have to bind It with the MARK? It is HW limitation or design > consideration? > > My understanding is you want flow action of setting metadata to be used later > as a matching item for the flows on other group. > It doesn't have to, but can be, bounded with the specific mark the > application wants to receive.
Yes, no problem with that, I was only commenting the wording of the description. It reads like it'll only work if a prior MARK action found in a *different* group set a mark to match. My point was that it could also be a prior rule in the same group. It could even be added by the device by some other means. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND
