From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Fastabend Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v1 01/11] net: flow_table: create interface for hw match/action tables Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:19:26 -0800 Message-ID: <54AB381E.3010009@gmail.com> References: <20141231194057.31070.5244.stgit@nitbit.x32> <20141231194544.31070.30335.stgit@nitbit.x32> <20150104111238.GD15305@casper.infradead.org> <54AADEFF.3090306@gmail.com> <54AB303E.3000601@gmail.com> <20150106010942.GD14077@vergenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Graf , sfeldma@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, jhs@mojatatu.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andy@greyhouse.net To: Simon Horman Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]:43090 "EHLO mail-ob0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753264AbbAFBTk (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 20:19:40 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id va8so63626012obc.3 for ; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:19:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150106010942.GD14077@vergenet.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/05/2015 05:09 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 04:45:50PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: >> [...] >> >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * @struct net_flow_field_ref >>>>> + * @brief uniquely identify field as header:field tuple >>>>> + */ >>>>> +struct net_flow_field_ref { >>>>> + int instance; >>>>> + int header; >>>>> + int field; >>>>> + int mask_type; >>>>> + int type; >>>>> + union { /* Are these all the required data types */ >>>>> + __u8 value_u8; >>>>> + __u16 value_u16; >>>>> + __u32 value_u32; >>>>> + __u64 value_u64; >>>>> + }; >>>>> + union { /* Are these all the required data types */ >>>>> + __u8 mask_u8; >>>>> + __u16 mask_u16; >>>>> + __u32 mask_u32; >>>>> + __u64 mask_u64; >>>>> + }; >>>>> +}; >>>> >>>> Does it make sense to write this as follows? >>> >>> Yes. I'll make this update it helps make it clear value/mask pairs are >>> needed. >>> >>>> >>>> union { >>>> struct { >>>> __u8 value_u8; >>>> __u8 mask_u8; >>>> }; >>>> struct { >>>> __u16 value_u16; >>>> __u16 mask_u16; >>>> }; >>>> ... >>>> }; >> >> Another thought is to pull this entirely out of the structure and hide >> it from the UAPI so we can add more value/mask types as needed without >> having to spin versions of net_flow_field_ref. On the other hand I've >> been able to fit all my fields in these types so far and I can't think >> of any additions we need at the moment. > > FWIW, I think it would be cleaner to break both field_ref and action_args > out into attributes and not expose the structures to user-space. But > perhaps there is an advantage to dealing with structures directly that > I am missing. > I came to the same conclusion just now as well. I'm reworking it now for v2. -- John Fastabend Intel Corporation