From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] net/mlx5: add software support for
 rte_flow
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:19:30 +0000
Message-ID: <21927e17-26fc-6c45-8953-3215fe47ce85@intel.com>
References: <cover.1482314020.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
 <cover.1482331954.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
 <e2b642365ec6d71f6616e7fa4758e84a673d0e92.1482331954.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9FD2BAD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:19:32 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <e2b642365ec6d71f6616e7fa4758e84a673d0e92.1482331954.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.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 12/21/2016 3:19 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
> Introduce initial software validation for rte_flow rules.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.h         |   2 +
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c    | 202 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_trigger.c |   2 +
>  3 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

<...>

> +	for (; items->type != RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_END; ++items) {
> +		if (items->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VOID) {
> +			continue;
> +		} else if (items->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH) {
> +			if (ilast)
> +				goto exit_item_not_supported;
> +			ilast = items;
> +		} else if ((items->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV4) ||
> +			   (items->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6)) {
> +			if (!ilast)
> +				goto exit_item_not_supported;
> +			else if (ilast->type != RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH)
> +				goto exit_item_not_supported;
> +			ilast = items;
> +		} else if ((items->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_UDP) ||
> +			   (items->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_TCP)) {
> +			if (!ilast)
> +				goto exit_item_not_supported;
> +			else if ((ilast->type != RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV4) &&
> +				 (ilast->type != RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6))
> +				goto exit_item_not_supported;
> +			ilast = items;
> +		} else {
> +			goto exit_item_not_supported;
> +		}
> +	}

I was thinking rte_flow_validate() is validating rule against hardware /
PMD, but here the API input validation is also done.
In patch 3/4 API input validation continues with validating each item
one by one.

Shouldn't each PMD needs to do this kind of input validation?
Why not move generic input validation to rte_flow API?
And if it is valid, call PMD specific one.