Balasubramanian Manoharan(bala-manoharan) replied on github web page:
test/validation/api/classification/odp_classification_common.c
line 9
@@ -107,8 +107,23 @@ int cls_pkt_set_seq(odp_packet_t pkt)
CU_ASSERT_FATAL(offset != ODP_PACKET_OFFSET_INVALID);
if (ip->proto == ODPH_IPPROTO_UDP)
- status = odp_packet_copy_from_mem(pkt, offset + ODPH_UDPHDR_LEN,
- sizeof(data), &data);
+ if (odp_packet_has_vxlan(pkt)) {
+ /* TODO: Inner header parsing is not supported
+ * in this ODP release. Hence the packet parsing
+ * is skipped. This code has to be modifies once
Comment:
Even if we add the capability currently we don't have ODP APIs expose them as
packet metadata functions. i.e odp_packet_has_inner_tcp()
Should we add the capability and defer this to after tiger-moth?
> Balasubramanian Manoharan(bala-manoharan) wrote:
> Will migrate to api-next
>> Balasubramanian Manoharan(bala-manoharan) wrote:
>> Okay
>>> Balasubramanian Manoharan(bala-manoharan) wrote:
>>> Will change the typo.
>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>> The "TODO" can't stand by itself. Sounds like we need an additional
>>>> `odp_classification_capability()` bit to indicate whether inner packets
>>>> are included in the parse?
>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>> Typo: modified
>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>> Need to validate that the packet (and specified UDP length) is large
>>>>>> enough to contain the VXLAN header and the encapsulated packet.
>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>> Inclusion of new APIs means this PR must be against api-next, not
>>>>>>> master.
>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>> [RFC 7348](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7348) uses VXLAN, not VxLAN.
>>>>>>>> I think we should use that throughout ODP as well as it avoids
>>>>>>>> unnecessary CamelCase.
>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Same comments here as for helper version of file.
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Typo: reserve, not reseve? Perhaps better for these to be anonymous
>>>>>>>>>> bitfields if they are truly unreferenced?
https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/345#discussion_r157152467
updated_at 2017-12-15 09:13:55
