From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:14:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20181122101421.GK17131@6wind.com> References: <1542646490-37406-1-git-send-email-dekelp@mellanox.com> <20181122090433.GJ17131@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "wenzhuo.lu@intel.com" , "jingjing.wu@intel.com" , "bernard.iremonger@intel.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Ori Kam , Shahaf Shuler To: Dekel Peled Return-path: Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com [209.85.128.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0CC1B296 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:14:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id u13-v6so8541178wmc.4 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 02:14:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:56:09AM +0000, Dekel Peled wrote: > Thanks, PSB. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Mazarguil > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:05 AM > > To: Dekel Peled > > Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com; jingjing.wu@intel.com; > > bernard.iremonger@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam > > ; Shahaf Shuler > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:54:50PM +0200, Dekel Peled wrote: > > > Set MPLS label value in appropriate location at mplsoudp_encap_conf, > > > so it is correctly copied to rte_flow_item_mpls. > > > > > > Fixes: a1191d39cb57 ("app/testpmd: add MPLSoUDP encapsulation") > > > Cc: orika@mellanox.com > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled > > > --- > > > app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c index > > > 1275074..40e64cc 100644 > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > > > @@ -15804,10 +15804,10 @@ static void > > cmd_set_mplsoudp_encap_parsed(void *parsed_result, > > > struct cmd_set_mplsoudp_encap_result *res = parsed_result; > > > union { > > > uint32_t mplsoudp_label; > > > - uint8_t label[3]; > > > + uint8_t label[4]; > > > } id = { > > > .mplsoudp_label = > > > - rte_cpu_to_be_32(res->label) & > > RTE_BE32(0x00ffffff), > > > + rte_cpu_to_be_32(res->label<<4) & > > RTE_BE32(0x00ffffff), > > > > Just to be sure, since label is a 20-bit value, isn't the shift supposed to be 12 > > bits? In which case that mask is harmless but misleading. How about: > > > > .mplsoudp_label = rte_cpu_to_be32((res->label & 0xfffff) << 12); > > > > Label is 20-bits value in a 24-bits field, see struct rte_flow_item_mpls. OK, I know, what I missed was the following line: rte_memcpy(mplsoudp_encap_conf.label, &id.label[1], 3); Just a suggestion then: using the same memcpy() offsets in both places for clarity: rte_be32_t label = rte_cpu_to_be32(res->label << 12); memcpy(mplsodudp_encap_conf.label, &label, 3); -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND