From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] net/e1000: destroy consistent filter
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 05:41:59 +0000
Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B5CBE44@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1495523581-56027-1-git-send-email-wei.zhao1@intel.com>
 <1496385391-12445-1-git-send-email-wei.zhao1@intel.com>
 <1496385391-12445-11-git-send-email-wei.zhao1@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: "Zhao1, Wei" <wei.zhao1@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75D47CD9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  5 Jun 2017 07:42:03 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1496385391-12445-11-git-send-email-wei.zhao1@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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 Wei,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhao1, Wei
> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 2:37 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhao1, Wei
> Subject: [PATCH v2 10/11] net/e1000: destroy consistent filter
>=20
> This patch adds a function to destroy the flow fliter.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c | 100
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c b/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c
> index fac76bf..bced291 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c
> @@ -1464,10 +1464,108 @@ igb_flow_validate(__rte_unused struct
> rte_eth_dev *dev,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>=20
> +/* Destroy a flow rule on igb. */
> +static int
> +igb_flow_destroy(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +		struct rte_flow *flow,
> +		struct rte_flow_error *error)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	struct rte_flow *pmd_flow =3D flow;
> +	enum rte_filter_type filter_type =3D pmd_flow->filter_type;
> +	struct rte_eth_ntuple_filter ntuple_filter;
> +	struct rte_eth_ethertype_filter ethertype_filter;
> +	struct rte_eth_syn_filter syn_filter;
> +	struct rte_eth_flex_filter flex_filter;
> +	struct igb_ntuple_filter_ele *ntuple_filter_ptr;
> +	struct igb_ethertype_filter_ele *ethertype_filter_ptr;
> +	struct igb_eth_syn_filter_ele *syn_filter_ptr;
> +	struct igb_flex_filter_ele *flex_filter_ptr;
> +	struct igb_flow_mem *igb_flow_mem_ptr;
> +
> +	switch (filter_type) {
> +	case RTE_ETH_FILTER_NTUPLE:
> +		ntuple_filter_ptr =3D (struct igb_ntuple_filter_ele *)
> +					pmd_flow->rule;
> +		(void)rte_memcpy(&ntuple_filter,
> +			&ntuple_filter_ptr->filter_info,
> +			sizeof(struct rte_eth_ntuple_filter));
> +		ret =3D igb_add_del_ntuple_filter(dev, &ntuple_filter, FALSE);
Is a copy necessary? Could "ntuple_filter_ptr->filter_info" be used directl=
y for deleting?=20
The same below.

> +		if (!ret) {
> +			TAILQ_REMOVE(&igb_filter_ntuple_list,
> +			ntuple_filter_ptr, entries);
> +			rte_free(ntuple_filter_ptr);
> +		}
> +		break;