From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ethdev: add mark flow item to flow item types Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:49:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20180423114923.GO4957@6wind.com> References: <1523017443-12414-1-git-send-email-declan.doherty@intel.com> <20180418210423.13847-1-declan.doherty@intel.com> <20180418210423.13847-5-declan.doherty@intel.com> <20180419130333.GB4957@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Declan Doherty , "dev@dpdk.org" , Alex Rosenbaum , Ferruh Yigit , Thomas Monjalon , Qi Zhang , Alejandro Lucero , Andrew Rybchenko , Mohammad Abdul Awal , Remy Horton , John McNamara , Rony Efraim , Jingjing Wu , Wenzhuo Lu , Vincent Jardin , Yuanhan Liu , Bruce Richardson , Konstantin Ananyev , Zhihong Wang To: Shahaf Shuler Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com (mail-wr0-f195.google.com [209.85.128.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517112B92 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:49:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id w3-v6so40402750wrg.2 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:49:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:10:11AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:04 PM, Adrien Mazarguil: > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ethdev: add mark flow item to flow > > item types > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:04:21PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote: > > > Introduces a new action type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_MARK which enables > > > flow patterns to specify arbitrary integer values to match aginst > > > > Typo on "aginst". > > > > > which are set by the RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK action in a > > previously > > > matched flow from a higher prioriry group. > > > > prioriry => priority, however this last addition is unnecessary, it could be any > > prior flow rule that happens to use PASSTHRU. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty > > > --- > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 28 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > index 325010544..6f23ad909 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > @@ -598,6 +598,34 @@ associated with a port_id should be retrieved by > > other means. > > > | ``mask`` | ``index`` | zeroed to match any port index | > > > +----------+-----------+--------------------------------+ > > > > > > +Item: ``MARK`` > > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > + > > > +Matches packets coming from a previously matched flow in a higher > > > +priority group > > > > See above re "higher priority group". > > > > > +with an arbitrary integer value which was set using the ``MARK`` > > > +action in the previously matched rule. > > > + > > Why we have to bind It with the MARK? It is HW limitation or design consideration? > > My understanding is you want flow action of setting metadata to be used later as a matching item for the flows on other group. > It doesn't have to, but can be, bounded with the specific mark the application wants to receive. Yes, no problem with that, I was only commenting the wording of the description. It reads like it'll only work if a prior MARK action found in a *different* group set a mark to match. My point was that it could also be a prior rule in the same group. It could even be added by the device by some other means. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND