From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Xing, Beilei" Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/22] app/testpmd: add rte_flow item spec handler Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:22:52 +0000 Message-ID: <94479800C636CB44BD422CB454846E01315717A4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <2d37e8ee1c613557e94acef94e381b72b2a535ce.1479309720.git.adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> <188971FCDA171749BED5DA74ABF3E6F03B6625B9@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20161216091746.GC10340@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , Olivier Matz To: Adrien Mazarguil , "Pei, Yulong" Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAB23DC for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:22:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20161216091746.GC10340@6wind.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Thanks Adrien. I have two questions: 1. when I set " / vlan tci fix 10" with testpmd, I find the mask of tci is= 0xFFFF. Actually tci includes PRI, CFI, and Vlan_id which holds 12 bits, so is= it possible to set the mask to 0xFFF?=20 Our driver will check the mask only covers vlan_id instead of the whol= e tci. 2. When we test destroy function, we find the pointer provided to PMD is NU= LL instead of the pointer PMD returned to RTE during creating flow. Could = you please have double check? Thanks. Best Regards Beilei > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:18 PM > To: Pei, Yulong > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon ; De > Lara Guarch, Pablo ; Olivier Matz > ; Xing, Beilei > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 12/22] app/testpmd: add rte_flow item spec > handler >=20 > Hi Yulong, >=20 > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 03:01:15AM +0000, Pei, Yulong wrote: > > Hi Adrien, > > > > I try to setup the following rule, but it seems that after set 'spec' = param, > can not set 'mask' param, is it an issue here or am I wrong to use it ? > > > > testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth dst spec 00:00:00:00:09:00 > > dst [TOKEN]: destination MAC > > src [TOKEN]: source MAC > > type [TOKEN]: EtherType > > / [TOKEN]: specify next pattern item >=20 > You need to re-specify dst with "mask" instead of "spec". You can specify= it > as many times you like to update each structure in turn, e.g.: >=20 > testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth dst spec 00:00:00:00:09:00 ds= t > mask 00:00:00:00:ff:ff >=20 > If you want to specify both spec and mask at once assuming you want it fu= ll, > these commands yield the same result: >=20 > testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth dst fix 00:00:00:00:09:00 te= stpmd> > flow create 0 ingress pattern eth dst spec 00:00:00:00:09:00 dst mask > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth dst spec > 00:00:00:00:09:00 dst prefix 48 >=20 > You are even allowed to change your mind: >=20 > testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth dst fix 00:00:2a:2a:2a:2a dst= fix > 00:00:00:00:09:00 >=20 > All these will be properly documented in the v2 patchset. Note, this vers= ion > will replace the "fix" keyword with "is" ("fix" made no sense according t= o > feedback). >=20 > -- > Adrien Mazarguil > 6WIND