From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] ethdev: add GTP items to support flow
 API
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:27:37 +0200
Message-ID: <20171002122737.GK3871@6wind.com>
References: <1506565054-67690-1-git-send-email-beilei.xing@intel.com>
 <1506662342-18966-1-git-send-email-beilei.xing@intel.com>
 <1506662342-18966-5-git-send-email-beilei.xing@intel.com>
 <CACA5i9aiD2vizhVMcqpmCKO31ayzaVeFrMChR9ZDwsqAjzXWgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <94479800C636CB44BD422CB454846E0132038E26@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CACA5i9YpyjdfiD8CKOwdk8gtwtzf5D1Oq7-v3OdkBq6XN4bk5g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Xing, Beilei" <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
 "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 "Chilikin, Andrey" <andrey.chilikin@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Sean Harte <seanbh@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AE51B209
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  2 Oct 2017 14:27:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id b189so6381660wmd.4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 05:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACA5i9YpyjdfiD8CKOwdk8gtwtzf5D1Oq7-v3OdkBq6XN4bk5g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:29:55AM +0100, Sean Harte wrote:
> On 29 September 2017 at 09:54, Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >> >  /**
> >> > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GTP.
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Matches a GTPv1 header.
> >> > + */
> >> > +struct rte_flow_item_gtp {
> >> > +       /**
> >> > +        * Version (3b), protocol type (1b), reserved (1b),
> >> > +        * Extension header flag (1b),
> >> > +        * Sequence number flag (1b),
> >> > +        * N-PDU number flag (1b).
> >> > +        */
> >> > +       uint8_t v_pt_rsv_flags;
> >> > +       uint8_t msg_type; /**< Message type. */
> >> > +       rte_be16_t msg_len; /**< Message length. */
> >> > +       rte_be32_t teid; /**< Tunnel endpoint identifier. */ };
> >>
> >> In future, you might add support for GTPv2 (which is used since LTE).
> >> Maybe this structure should have v1 in its name to avoid confusion?
> >
> > I considered it before. But I think we can modify it when we support GTPv2 in future, and keep concise 'GTP' currently:)  since I have described it matches v1 header.
> >
> 
> You could rename v_pt_rsv_flags to version_flags to avoid some future
> code changes to support GTPv2. There's still the issue that not all
> GTPv2 messages have a TEID though.

Although they have the same size, the header of these two protocols
obviously differs. My suggestion would be to go with a separate GTPv2
pattern item using its own dedicated structure instead.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND