From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:29:05 +0530
Message-ID: <20180829155904.GA7133@jerin>
References: <20180827123835.27531-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20180829083110.42d85024@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-eopbgr700056.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.70.56])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10535A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:59:22 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180829083110.42d85024@xeon-e3>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:31:10 -0700
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev]  [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type
> 
> External Email
> 
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 18:08:35 +0530
> Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> 
> > Add support for IGMP packet type.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
> 
> Could you add logic to recoginize IGMP to the software packet type identification
> rte_net_get_ptype used by drivers that don't have hardware support.

If everyone agrees then I can do it as adding IGMP support will reduce
the performance of rte_net_get_ptype() and most of the NIC may not need it.

Opinions?

> 
> Also shouldn't this bit be part of RTE_PTYPE_L4_MASK?

The RTE_PTYPE_L4_MASK is 0x00000f00 so it is part it. Right?

>