Re: [PATCH v3] ip_frag: extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header()

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

30/10/2018 10:46, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 28/10/2018 21:54, Cody Doucette:
> > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > 27/07/2018 15:52, Cody Doucette:
> > > > > Extend rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header() to skip over any
> > > > > other IPv6 extension headers when finding the fragment header.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to RFC 8200, there is no guarantee that the IPv6
> > > > > Fragment extension header will come before any other extension
> > > > > header, even though it is recommended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Qiaobin Fu <qiaobinf@bu.edu>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > * Removed compilation flag D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 from the
> > > > >   failsafe driver to allow compilation on freebsd.
> > > >
> > > > How failsafe is related to ip_frag?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > v2:
> > > > > * Moved IPv6 extension header definitions to lib_net.
> > > > >
> > > > >  drivers/net/failsafe/Makefile               |  1 -
> > > > >  drivers/net/failsafe/meson.build            |  1 -
> > > > >  examples/ip_reassembly/main.c               |  6 ++--
> > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag.h            | 23 ++++++-------
> > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ip_frag_version.map  |  1 +
> > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_reassembly.c    |  4 +--
> > > > >  lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h                     | 27 +++++++++++++++
> > > > >  lib/librte_port/rte_port_ras.c              |  6 ++--
> > > >
> > > > Changes in failsafe, rte_net and rte_port look like garbage.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the ip_frag part requires some review.
> > > > +Cc Konstantin, the maintainer.
> > >
> > > Garbage in what sense? I would be happy to amend with a little more
> > > information.
> > >
> > > The changes to failsafe and rte_net were from previous reviews from
> > > Konstantin:
> > >
> > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-June/106023.html
> > >
> > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108701.html
> > 
> > After a better look, the change in rte_port is fine.
> > 
> > But the changes in failsafe and rte_net would be better in their own patch.
> > You can have 3 patches in a patchset (with a cover letter to explain the
> > global idea).
> > Then, failsafe and rte_net changes must be reviewed by their maintainers.
> > 
> 
> The patch looks good to me.
> About failsafe changes - the reason for that was that failsafe driver didn't build
> properly with the proposed changes.
> Gaetan was ok to remove that extra compiler flag:
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108826.html

OK. Please send the failsafe patch as the first of the series.
Thanks