Hi, What's the DPDK version you used? With the latest DPDK version, there's no such issue.
BR, Beilei > -----Original Message----- > From: users <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Antoine POLLENUS > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [dpdk-users] Issues with rte_flow_destroy > > Hi, > > I'm experiencing some issues using the flow API and a intel XXV710 (i40e). > > I managed to reproduce it in the flow filtering sample. > > I'm creating one flow than deleting it and then creating another with basic > change #define SRC_IP ((0<<24) + (0<<16) + (0<<8) + 0) /* src ip = 0.0.0.0 */ > #define SRC_IP_1 ((192<<24) + (168<<16) + (1<<8) + 3) /* dest ip = 192.168.1.1 > */ #define DEST_IP ((192<<24) + (168<<16) + (1<<8) + 1) /* dest ip = > 192.168.1.1 > */ #define DEST_IP_1 ((192<<24) + (168<<16) + (1<<8) + 2) /* dest ip = > 192.168.1.1 */ > > flow = generate_ipv4_flow(port_id, selected_queue, > SRC_IP, > EMPTY_MASK, > DEST_IP, > FULL_MASK, &error); > if (!flow) { > printf("Flow can't be created %d message: > %s\n", > error.type, > error.message ? error.message > : "(no stated reason)"); > rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "error in creating > flow"); > } > //Deleting the rule > int returned; > returned = rte_flow_destroy(port_id, flow, &error); > if(returned < 0) > { > printf("destroy %d message: %s\n", > error.type, > error.message ? error.message > : "(no stated reason)"); > } > //Generating another rule > flow1 = generate_ipv4_flow(port_id, selected_queue, > SRC_IP_1, > FULL_MASK, > DEST_IP_1, > FULL_MASK, &error); > if (!flow1) { > printf("Flow can't be created %d message: > %s\n", > error.type, > error.message ? error.message > : "(no stated reason)"); > rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "error in creating > flow"); > } > > When doing that I always get an error on the second flow I want to add. > > Flow can't be created 13 message: Conflict with the first rule's input set. > > The rule is indeed in conflict because it uses the same as the previous but > with > the source IP changing and also the destination IP. > > The strange thing is that a destroy has been made on the previous rule and > should not be there anymore.... > > Am I doing something wrong or is there a bug in the destroy function ? > > Thank you in advance for your answer, > > Regards, > > Antoine Pollenus
