From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: fix tunnel flags check
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:07:15 +0200
Message-ID: <7940373.JSzZk48P3I@xps13>
References: <1437004212-31646-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <28177519.UZIomONHXn@xps13>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8953BD@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98F66A87
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:08:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wgxm20 with SMTP id m20so53006397wgx.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8953BD@SHSMSX104.ccr.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>

2015-07-16 00:36, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2015-07-15 23:57, Zhang, Helin:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > A packet is tunnelled if the tunnel type is identified or if it has an inner part.
> > > >
> > > > Fix also a typo in RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L3_MASK.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: f295a00a2b44 ("mbuf: add definitions of unified packet
> > > > types")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > |...]
> > > >  /* Check if it is a tunneling packet */  -#define
> > > > RTE_ETH_IS_TUNNEL_PKT(ptype) ((ptype) & RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK)
> > > > +#define RTE_ETH_IS_TUNNEL_PKT(ptype) ((ptype) &
> > > > +(RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK | \  RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L2_MASK | \
> > > > +RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L3_MASK | \
> > > > + RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_MASK))
> > >
> > > Could you help to explain more of why here?
> > > My understanding is that if an inner one can be recognized, there must be a
> > tunnel type there.
> > 
> > Not always.
> > It was my comment in mlx4 patch:
> > 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-July/021702.html
> > Currently we can know that mlx4 has detected a tunnel but don't know which
> > one.
> 
> I'd suggest to do more in mlx4 driver, rather than adding more checks in this macro.
> If it can detect the inner l2/l3 type, the driver should tell it is a tunneled packet.
> If it cannot know which tunnel it is, I'd suggest to add one more tunnel type of
> RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN.
> Two reasons:
> - PMD should tell enough info to high level caller or application. It should be clear enough.

RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN doesn't make it clearer, IMHO.

> - Adding more checks in those macro results in more cpu cycles for other NICs to check
> the packet types.

Not sure. It only extends the mask to check. It shouldn't add more cpu cycle.