Hi Stephen BR Rongwei
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 11:02 > To: Rongwei Liu <[email protected]> > Cc: Matan Azrad <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko > <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact- > Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; Aman Singh > <[email protected]>; Yuying Zhang <[email protected]>; > Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > <[email protected]>; Olivier Matz <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] ethdev: add IPv6 routing extension header > definition > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 05:59:33 +0200 > Rongwei Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +/** > > + * @warning > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice > > + * > > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_ROUTING_EXT. > > + * > > + * Matches an IPv6 routing extension header. > > + */ > > +struct rte_flow_item_ipv6_routing_ext { > > + struct rte_ipv6_routing_ext hdr; }; > > The problem with nesting a variable length structure inside another structure > is not allowed. > > The issue is that the applicaiton would have to pass a variable length > structure > in for the flow definition. The flow item is variable length for this type? > all the > others are fixed length. > Yeah, segments_left is uint8 per definition. RFC doesn't set an upper limitation. It stands for intermediate routing nodes between src and dst nodes. > One option would be to get rid of the wrapper structure. Yeah, it works. @Andrew Rybchenko Can you share your preference here?
