From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:01:40 +0100 Message-ID: <54E30374.4010809@6wind.com> References: <1422501365-12643-1-git-send-email-helin.zhang@intel.com> <1424156374-21768-1-git-send-email-helin.zhang@intel.com> <1424156374-21768-4-git-send-email-helin.zhang@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Helin Zhang , dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1424156374-21768-4-git-send-email-helin.zhang-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" Hi Helin, On 02/17/2015 07:59 AM, Helin Zhang wrote: > As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flags for indicating packet > types, which is not enough to describe all the possible packet > types hardware can recognize. For example, i40e hardware can > recognize more than 150 packet types. Unified packet type is > composed of L2 type, L3 type, L4 type, tunnel type, inner L2 type, > inner L3 type and inner L4 type fields, and can be stored in > 'struct rte_mbuf' of 32 bits field 'packet_type'. > > Signed-off-by: Helin Zhang A formal definition of each flag is still missing. I explained several times why it's needed. We must be able to answer to these questions: - If I'm developing a PMD, what fields should I check in the packet to set a specific flag? - If I'm developing an application, if a specific flag is set, what checks can I skip? Example with RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4: - IP version field is 4 - no IP options (header size is 20) - layer 2 identified the packet as IP (ex: ethertype=0x800) I think we need such a definition for all packet types. Regards, Olivier