Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add VXLAN last reserved field

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

05/06/2024 11:41, rongwei liu:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 05/06/2024 10:14, rongwei liu:
> > > > > > > In this patch, "vxlan_last_rsvd" is used in testpmd, so it
> > > > > > > matches
> > > > > > > existing "last_rsvd" field in VXLAN item. If we choose to use
> > > > > > > "rsvd1",
> > > > > > > we should probably rename all other instances of "last_rsvd" to
> > > > > > > match.> >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I prefer "vxlan_last_rsvd" for 2 reasons:
> > > > > >         - it is more meaningful
> > > > > >         - we are adding first, second and third reserved fields to
> > > > > >         match
> > > > > >         the 3 bytes of rsvd0 (patch to come)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sound clear and reasonable. I would like to propose the alignment between rte_flow_field_id and rte_vxlan_hdr:
> > > > >   1.
> > > > > 
> > > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1  ---> RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD
> > > > > 
> > > > >   2.
> > > > > 
> > > > > "uint8_t rsvd1"  ---->  "uint8_t last_rsvd"
> > > > 
> > > > We don't change rte_vxlan_hdr, because we avoid breaking
> > > > compatibility.
> > > 
> > > How about to add a new union:
> > > 
> > > union {
> > > 
> > >     uint8_t rsvd1;
> > >     uint8_t last_rsvd;
> > > 
> > > }
> > > 
> > >  RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD will perfectly match the rte_vxlan_hdr
> > >  definition.> > 
> > It could be a solution, yes,
> > but I don't see it in your v5.
> 
> Should I add this change in my serial or expect it in the upcoming new VXLAN header definitions?

It fits better in your series.