[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-20 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Helin, On 01/20/2015 03:28 AM, Zhang, Helin wrote: >> Another question I've asked several times[1][2] : what does having >> RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_IP mean? What fields are checked by the hardware (or >> the driver) and what fields should be checked by the application? >> Are you sure that all the dri

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-20 Thread Zhang, Helin
> -Original Message- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:20 AM > To: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org > Cc: Liang, Cunming; Liu, Jijiang > Subject: RE: [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Zha

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-20 Thread Zhang, Helin
> -Original Message- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:27 AM > To: Neil Horman; Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet > types >

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-19 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi, On 01/19/2015 05:33 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0800, Helin Zhang wrote: >> As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flags for indicating packet types, >> which is not enough to describe all the possible packet types hardware >> can recognize. For example, i40e hard

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-19 Thread Ananyev, Konstantin
> -Original Message- > From: Zhang, Helin > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 3:23 AM > To: dev at dpdk.org > Cc: Liang, Cunming; Liu, Jijiang; Ananyev, Konstantin; Zhang, Helin > Subject: [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types > > As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flag

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-19 Thread Neil Horman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 06:27:02PM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/19/2015 05:33 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0800, Helin Zhang wrote: > >> As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flags for indicating packet types, > >> which is not enough to describe all t

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-19 Thread Neil Horman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0800, Helin Zhang wrote: > As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flags for indicating packet types, > which is not enough to describe all the possible packet types hardware > can recognize. For example, i40e hardware can recognize more than 150 > packet types. Unif

[dpdk-dev] [RFC 01/17] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

2015-01-19 Thread Helin Zhang
As there are only 6 bit flags in ol_flags for indicating packet types, which is not enough to describe all the possible packet types hardware can recognize. For example, i40e hardware can recognize more than 150 packet types. Unified packet type is composed of tunnel type, L3 type, L4 type and inne