> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:48 PM > To: Liu, Jijiang > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/8]librte_ether:add a common filter API > > 2014-10-17 06:53, Liu, Jijiang: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > 2014-10-11 13:55, Jijiang Liu: > > > > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC 0x01 > > > > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OIP 0x02 > > > > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID 0x04 #define > > > > +ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC 0x08 #define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IVLAN > 0x10 > > > > +#define ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IIP 0x20 > > > > + > > > > +#define RTE_TUNNEL_FLAGS_TO_QUEUE 1 > > > > > > These values requires some comments. > > OK, add comments for these MACROs > > > > +/* > > > > + * Tunneled filter type > > > > + */ > > > > +enum rte_tunnel_filter_type { > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_TYPE_NONE = 0, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_OIP = ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OIP, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_IVLAN = > > > > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IVLAN, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_IVLAN_TENID = > > > > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IVLAN | > > > > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_TENID = > > > > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC = ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC_TENID_IMAC = > > > > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC | ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_TENID | > > > > + ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IIP = ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IIP, > > > > + RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_TYPE_MAX, > > > > +}; > > > > > > It's absolutely impossible to understand. Keep in mind the first > > > goal of an > > > API: be used (which imply to be understood by users). > > > And I really don't understand why you define values for combination > > > of previous flags. Please, keep it simple. > > > > The goal of defining values for combination of filter type in order to > > easily distinguish/check if the mandatory parameters are valid for a > > specific filter type, for example, if the filter type is > > RTE_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC_IVLAN, we just need to check if the inner MAC > > address and inner VLAN ID are valid. > > To limit sanity checks to valid parameters the rte_tunnel_filter_type > > enumeration can be replaced/initialized by bit mask. > > > > Furthermore, please look at i40e_tunnel_filter_param_check () function > > in "[PATCH v5 5/8]i40e:implement API of VxLAN packet filter in > librte_pmd_i40e" patch. > > static int > > +i40e_tunnel_filter_param_check(struct i40e_pf *pf, > > + struct rte_eth_tunnel_filter_conf *filter) { > > + ... > > > > + if ((filter->filter_type & ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_OMAC) && > > + (is_zero_ether_addr(filter->outer_mac))) { > > + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Cannot add NULL outer MAC > address\n"); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + if ((filter->filter_type & ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER_IMAC) && > > + (is_zero_ether_addr(filter->inner_mac))) { > > + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Cannot add NULL inner MAC > address\n"); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > > > Actually, If you really don't like rte_tunnel_filter_type definition > > style, and I can change it. > > Yes, you can just replace this "enum rte_tunnel_filter_type" by an integer > like uint16_t. It won't change your tests.
Ok,thanks. > -- > Thomas
