From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABF1C433F5 for ; Sun, 29 May 2022 10:38:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C87840A82; Sun, 29 May 2022 12:38:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from forward500p.mail.yandex.net (forward500p.mail.yandex.net [77.88.28.110]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8720A40041 for ; Sun, 29 May 2022 12:38:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from myt5-1ce284ea94ec.qloud-c.yandex.net (myt5-1ce284ea94ec.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c12:4d97:0:640:1ce2:84ea]) by forward500p.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id CA1FCF01935; Sun, 29 May 2022 13:38:40 +0300 (MSK) Received: from myt6-870ea81e6a0f.qloud-c.yandex.net (myt6-870ea81e6a0f.qloud-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c12:2229:0:640:870e:a81e]) by myt5-1ce284ea94ec.qloud-c.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id bFS0oH99cp-cefGIotI; Sun, 29 May 2022 13:38:40 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1653820720; bh=BKugI+ee5lbKH1o/orI0IpEBsU1XsQXdjRDm47jTt4c=; h=In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Cc:References:Date:Message-ID:To; b=nVEjg44/K8z0BGTqgyhpaMgs7R7401wcrBOoI8eOGh9v8jLnr3X1vR/2IV9bB1Ljg gMp95V3i1N2UhPjOEfJOU7AhhIpe0ZDurMb3gOv7PHRkuzkd9e02ImPBcrSZ9og0uh ULeduNu4qzjmYv14x7OQj+JuHKe6KNpaQXiOX5zQ= Authentication-Results: myt5-1ce284ea94ec.qloud-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru Received: by myt6-870ea81e6a0f.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id mjE2OCia5u-cdJq2fhp; Sun, 29 May 2022 13:38:40 +0300 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client certificate not present) Message-ID: <100f06d5-e548-4639-aaf5-ce0731f91b54@yandex.ru> Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 11:38:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and test data Content-Language: en-US To: Huichao Cai , "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , David Marchand , Thomas Monjalon References: <1649649325-1942-1-git-send-email-chcchc88@163.com> <1649993210-1854-1-git-send-email-chcchc88@163.com> <2d596839.bce.1810f095145.Coremail.chcchc88@163.com> From: Konstantin Ananyev In-Reply-To: <2d596839.bce.1810f095145.Coremail.chcchc88@163.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Hi Huichao, > Hi Konstantin, > This patch has been around for a long time, so what's next? I acked it, which means that I am ok with that patch to go in. Now it is up to main tree maintainers to pull it in. Konstantin > Huichao,Cai > > At 2022-04-15 16:29:10, "Ananyev, Konstantin" wrote: >>> According to RFC791,the options may appear or not in datagrams. >>> They must be implemented by all IP modules (host and gateways). >>> What is optional is their transmission in any particular datagram, >>> not their implementation.So we have to deal with it during the >>> fragmenting process.Add some test data for the IPv4 header optional >>> field fragmenting. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Huichao Cai >>> --- >> >>Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev >> >>> 1.8.3.1 > > > > >