From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20161010131927.GK17252@6wind.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Zhao1, Wei" Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com (mail-lf0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E211F2E41 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:19:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x79so126819990lff.0 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Wei, On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 09:42:53AM +0000, Zhao1, Wei wrote: > Hi Adrien Mazarguil, > > In your v2 version of rte_flow.txt , there is an action type RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK, but there is no definition of struct rte_flow_action_mark. > And there is an definition of struct rte_flow_action_id. Is it a typo or other usage? > > Thank you. > > struct rte_flow_action_id { > uint32_t id; /**< 32 bit value to return with packets. */ > }; That is indeed a mistake, this struct should be named "rte_flow_action_mark". I'll fix it for the next update, thanks. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND