From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/8]librte_ether:add a common filter API Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:09:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1584946.LFzgr7T2Dy@xps13> References: <1413006935-22535-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <1413006935-22535-5-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Jijiang Liu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1413006935-22535-5-git-send-email-jijiang.liu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" I don't review the common API as it should be done in an unique place and there are many copies in different patchsets. Let's focus on tunnels. 2014-10-11 13:55, Jijiang Liu: > +/**** TUNNEL FILTER DATA DEFINATION *** */ We cannot miss this comment :) > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC 0x01 > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OIP 0x02 > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID 0x04 > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC 0x08 > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IVLAN 0x10 > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IIP 0x20 > + > +#define RTE_TUNNEL_FLAGS_TO_QUEUE 1 These values requires some comments. > +/* > + * Tunneled filter type > + */ > +enum rte_tunnel_filter_type { > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_TYPE_NONE = 0, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_OIP = ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OIP, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_IVLAN = > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IVLAN, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_IVLAN_TENID = > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IVLAN | > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_TENID = > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC = ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC_TENID_IMAC = > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID | > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IIP = ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IIP, > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_TYPE_MAX, > +}; It's absolutely impossible to understand. Keep in mind the first goal of an API: be used (which imply to be understood by users). And I really don't understand why you define values for combination of previous flags. Please, keep it simple. -- Thomas