> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:13 PM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: fix tunnel flags check > > 2015-07-15 23:57, Zhang, Helin: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > A packet is tunnelled if the tunnel type is identified or if it has an > > > inner part. > > > > > > Fix also a typo in RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L3_MASK. > > > > > > Fixes: f295a00a2b44 ("mbuf: add definitions of unified packet > > > types") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > |...] > > > /* Check if it is a tunneling packet */ -#define > > > RTE_ETH_IS_TUNNEL_PKT(ptype) ((ptype) & RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK) > > > +#define RTE_ETH_IS_TUNNEL_PKT(ptype) ((ptype) & > > > +(RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK | \ RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L2_MASK | \ > > > +RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L3_MASK | \ > > > + RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_MASK)) > > > > Could you help to explain more of why here? > > My understanding is that if an inner one can be recognized, there must be a > tunnel type there. > > Not always. > It was my comment in mlx4 patch: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-July/021702.html > Currently we can know that mlx4 has detected a tunnel but don't know which > one. I'd suggest to do more in mlx4 driver, rather than adding more checks in this macro. If it can detect the inner l2/l3 type, the driver should tell it is a tunneled packet. If it cannot know which tunnel it is, I'd suggest to add one more tunnel type of RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN. Two reasons: - PMD should tell enough info to high level caller or application. It should be clear enough. - Adding more checks in those macro results in more cpu cycles for other NICs to check the packet types.
Regards, Helin
