> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:09 PM > To: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 03/16] mbuf: add definitions of unified > packet > types > > Hi Helin, > > On 02/20/2015 03:26 PM, Zhang, Helin wrote: > >> On 02/17/2015 07:59 AM, Helin Zhang wrote: > >>> As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flags for indicating packet > >>> types, which is not enough to describe all the possible packet types > >>> hardware can recognize. For example, i40e hardware can recognize > >>> more than 150 packet types. Unified packet type is composed of L2 > >>> type, L3 type, L4 type, tunnel type, inner L2 type, inner L3 type > >>> and inner L4 type fields, and can be stored in 'struct rte_mbuf' of > >>> 32 bits field 'packet_type'. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Helin Zhang <helin.zhang at intel.com> > >> > >> A formal definition of each flag is still missing. I explained > >> several times why it's needed. We must be able to answer to these > >> questions: > >> > >> - If I'm developing a PMD, what fields should I check in the packet > >> to set a specific flag? > >> - If I'm developing an application, if a specific flag is set, what > >> checks can I skip? > >> > >> Example with RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4: > >> > >> - IP version field is 4 > >> - no IP options (header size is 20) > >> - layer 2 identified the packet as IP (ex: ethertype=0x800) > >> > >> I think we need such a definition for all packet types. > > You meant we need a detailed description of each packet type, right? > > If yes, I can add those information soon. Thanks for the helps! > > Yes, I think this would be really helpful. OK. Got it. I will add them and send out v4 version. Thanks for your good suggestions!
Regards, Helin > > Thank you! > Olivier