Hi Olivier
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:37 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 17/17] mbuf: remove old packet type bit masks
> for ol_flags
>
> Hi Helin,
>
> On 01/29/2015 04:16 AM, Helin Zhang wrote:
> > To unify packet types among all PMDs, bit masks and relevant macros of
> > packet type for ol_flags are replaced by unified packet type and
> > relevant macros.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Helin Zhang <helin.zhang at intel.com>
> > ---
> > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 6 ------ lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h |
> > 10 ++--------
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
> > index 1b14e02..8050ccf 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
> > @@ -215,14 +215,8 @@ const char *rte_get_rx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t
> mask)
> > /* case PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW: return "PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW";
> */
> > /* case PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR: return "PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR"; */
> > /* case PKT_RX_MAC_ERR: return "PKT_RX_MAC_ERR"; */
> > - case PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR: return "PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR";
> > - case PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR_EXT: return "PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR_EXT";
> > - case PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR: return "PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR";
> > - case PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR_EXT: return "PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR_EXT";
> > case PKT_RX_IEEE1588_PTP: return "PKT_RX_IEEE1588_PTP";
> > case PKT_RX_IEEE1588_TMST: return "PKT_RX_IEEE1588_TMST";
> > - case PKT_RX_TUNNEL_IPV4_HDR: return "PKT_RX_TUNNEL_IPV4_HDR";
> > - case PKT_RX_TUNNEL_IPV6_HDR: return "PKT_RX_TUNNEL_IPV6_HDR";
>
> I see you are not removing IEEE1588. Is there a reason why it is not handled
> as
> a packet_type?
Ieee1588 is not a part of information reported by hardware in packet type.
Yes, your idea on this is worth being taken into account.
>
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > index 94ae344..5df0d61 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -90,16 +90,10 @@ extern "C" {
> > #define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0) /**< Header buffer
> overflow. */
> > #define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< Hardware processing
> error. */
> > #define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< MAC error. */
> > -#define PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR (1ULL << 5) /**< RX packet with IPv4
> header. */
> > -#define PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR_EXT (1ULL << 6) /**< RX packet with
> extended IPv4 header. */
> > -#define PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR (1ULL << 7) /**< RX packet with IPv6
> header. */
> > -#define PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR_EXT (1ULL << 8) /**< RX packet with
> > extended IPv6 header. */ #define PKT_RX_IEEE1588_PTP (1ULL << 9)
> > /**< RX IEEE1588 L2 Ethernet PT Packet. */ #define
> > PKT_RX_IEEE1588_TMST (1ULL << 10) /**< RX IEEE1588 L2/L4 timestamped
> > packet.*/ -#define PKT_RX_TUNNEL_IPV4_HDR (1ULL << 11) /**< RX tunnel
> packet with IPv4 header.*/ -#define PKT_RX_TUNNEL_IPV6_HDR (1ULL << 12)
> /**< RX tunnel packet with IPv6 header. */
> > -#define PKT_RX_FDIR_ID (1ULL << 13) /**< FD id reported if FDIR
> match. */
> > -#define PKT_RX_FDIR_FLX (1ULL << 14) /**< Flexible bytes reported if
> FDIR match. */
> > +#define PKT_RX_FDIR_ID (1ULL << 11) /**< FD id reported if FDIR
> match. */
> > +#define PKT_RX_FDIR_FLX (1ULL << 12) /**< Flexible bytes reported if
> FDIR match. */
>
> It looks like but numbers are not contiguous anymore (there is a hole between
> 5 and 8).
Initially I don't want to move the following values up, as I am not sure if it
may
affect other features.
I'd prefer to keep that hole as reserved. What's the opinion from you guys?
Thanks for the good comments!
>
> Regards,
> Olivier
