Hi Wei,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhao1, Wei
> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 2:37 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhao1, Wei
> Subject: [PATCH v2 10/11] net/e1000: destroy consistent filter
>
> This patch adds a function to destroy the flow fliter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c | 100
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c b/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c
> index fac76bf..bced291 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/igb_flow.c
> @@ -1464,10 +1464,108 @@ igb_flow_validate(__rte_unused struct
> rte_eth_dev *dev,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +/* Destroy a flow rule on igb. */
> +static int
> +igb_flow_destroy(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> + struct rte_flow *flow,
> + struct rte_flow_error *error)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct rte_flow *pmd_flow = flow;
> + enum rte_filter_type filter_type = pmd_flow->filter_type;
> + struct rte_eth_ntuple_filter ntuple_filter;
> + struct rte_eth_ethertype_filter ethertype_filter;
> + struct rte_eth_syn_filter syn_filter;
> + struct rte_eth_flex_filter flex_filter;
> + struct igb_ntuple_filter_ele *ntuple_filter_ptr;
> + struct igb_ethertype_filter_ele *ethertype_filter_ptr;
> + struct igb_eth_syn_filter_ele *syn_filter_ptr;
> + struct igb_flex_filter_ele *flex_filter_ptr;
> + struct igb_flow_mem *igb_flow_mem_ptr;
> +
> + switch (filter_type) {
> + case RTE_ETH_FILTER_NTUPLE:
> + ntuple_filter_ptr = (struct igb_ntuple_filter_ele *)
> + pmd_flow->rule;
> + (void)rte_memcpy(&ntuple_filter,
> + &ntuple_filter_ptr->filter_info,
> + sizeof(struct rte_eth_ntuple_filter));
> + ret = igb_add_del_ntuple_filter(dev, &ntuple_filter, FALSE);
Is a copy necessary? Could "ntuple_filter_ptr->filter_info" be used directly
for deleting?
The same below.
> + if (!ret) {
> + TAILQ_REMOVE(&igb_filter_ntuple_list,
> + ntuple_filter_ptr, entries);
> + rte_free(ntuple_filter_ptr);
> + }
> + break;
