From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: supported packet types
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:58:43 +0200
Message-ID: <576901C3.2040906@6wind.com>
References: <57237A88.6030807@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B43013@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <57592168.2020702@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B718E1@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <57625A03.1090209@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B7222E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD97FADF8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:58:50 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B7222E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>

Hi Konstantin,

On 06/16/2016 01:29 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>> I suggest instead to set the ptype
>>>> in an opportunistic fashion instead:
>>>> - if the driver/hw knows the ptype, set it
>>>> - else, set it to unknown
>>>
>>> That's what PMD does now... and I don't think it can do much more -
>>> only interpret information provided by the HW in a proper way.
>>> Probably I misunderstood you here...
>>
>> My suggestion was to remove get_supported_ptypes an set the ptype in
>> mbuf when the pmd recognize a type.
>>
>> But we could also keep get_supported_ptypes() for ptypes that will
>> always be recognized, allowing a PMD to set any other ptype if it
>> is recognized. This is probably what we have today in some PMDs, I
>> think it just requires some clarification.
> 
> Yes, +1 to the second option.

What about the following API comment?

'''
Retrieve the supported packet types of an Ethernet device.

When a packet type is announced as supported, it *must* be recognized by
the PMD. For instance, if RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER, RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER_VLAN
and RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4 are announced, the PMD must return the following
packet types for these packets:
- Ether/IPv4              -> RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER | RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4
- Ether/Vlan/IPv4         -> RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER_VLAN | RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4
- Ether/<anything else>   -> RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER
- Ether/Vlan/<anything else> -> RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER_VLAN

When a packet is received by a PMD, the most precise type must be
returned among the ones supported. However a PMD is allowed to set
packet type that is not in the supported list, at the condition that it
is more precise. Therefore, a PMD announcing no supported packet types
can still set a matching packet type in a received packet.
'''

If it's fine I'll submit it as a patch.

Regards,
Olivier