20/04/2021 12:04, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 12/04/2021 01:23, Cristian Dumitrescu: > > > Each table entry is made up of match fields and action data, with the > > > latter made up of the action ID and the action arguments. The approach > > > of having the user specify explicitly the endianness of the action > > > arguments is difficult to be picked up by P4 compilers, as the P4 > > > compiler is generally unaware about this aspect. > > > > > > This commit introduces the auto-detection of the endianness of the > > > action arguments by examining the endianness of the their destination: > > > network byte order (NBO) when they get copied to headers and host byte > > > order (HBO) when they get copied to packet meta-data or mailboxes. > > > > > > The endianness specification of each action argument as part of the > > > rule specification, e.g. H(...) and N(...) is removed from the rule > > > file and auto-detected based on their destination. The DMA instruction > > > scope is made internal, so mov instructions need to be used. The > > > pattern of transferring complete headers from table entry action args > > > to headers is detected, and the associated set of mov instructions > > > plus header validate is internally detected and replaced with the > > > internal-only DMA instruction to preserve performance. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Dumitrescu <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > examples/pipeline/examples/vxlan.spec | 41 ++- > > > examples/pipeline/examples/vxlan_table.py | 44 ++-- > > > examples/pipeline/examples/vxlan_table.txt | 32 +-- > > > lib/librte_pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.c | 15 +- > > > lib/librte_pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.h | 6 + > > > lib/librte_pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.c | 282 ++++++++++++++++++--- > > > lib/librte_pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.h | 4 - > > > > There are compilation issues in the CI: > > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210411232338.4005-2- > > cristian.dumitre...@intel.com/ > > > > Hi Thomas, > > The reason for the CI issues is because this patch set has dependencies on > the previous patches that were pending, but now already applied by you (thank > you!), so there should not be any real issues?
Yes I didn't see any issue locally, just wanted to confirm.
