> -Original Message-
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:39 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Yigit, Ferruh
> ; dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo
> ; Wu, Jingjing ; Ajit Khaparde
> ; Somnath Kotur
> ; John Daley ; Hyong
> You
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:20:34PM +, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> Hi Adrien:
>
> > Hi PMD maintainers, while I'm pretty confident in these changes, I could not
> > validate them with all devices.
> >
> > It would be great if you could apply this patch, run testpmd, create VLAN
> > flow
> > rules wi
Hi Adrien:
> Hi PMD maintainers, while I'm pretty confident in these changes, I could not
> validate them with all devices.
>
> It would be great if you could apply this patch, run testpmd, create VLAN flow
> rules with/without inner EtherType as described and send matching traffic
> while making
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:55:10AM +0200, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > TPID handling in rte_flow VLAN and E_TAG pattern item definitions is not
> > consistent with the normal stacking order of pattern items, which is
> > confusing t
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> TPID handling in rte_flow VLAN and E_TAG pattern item definitions is not
> consistent with the normal stacking order of pattern items, which is
> confusing to applications.
>
> Problem is that when followed by one of these layers,
TPID handling in rte_flow VLAN and E_TAG pattern item definitions is not
consistent with the normal stacking order of pattern items, which is
confusing to applications.
Problem is that when followed by one of these layers, the EtherType field
of the preceding layer keeps its "inner" definition, an
6 matches
Mail list logo
