[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 03/16] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet types

[Zhang, Helin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:09 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 03/16] mbuf: add definitions of unified packet
> types
> 
> Hi Helin,
> 
> On 02/20/2015 03:26 PM, Zhang, Helin wrote:
> >> On 02/17/2015 07:59 AM, 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. Unified packet type is composed of L2
> >>> type, L3 type, L4 type, tunnel type, inner L2 type, inner L3 type
> >>> and inner L4 type fields, and can be stored in 'struct rte_mbuf' of
> >>> 32 bits field 'packet_type'.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Helin Zhang <helin.zhang at intel.com>
> >>
> >> A formal definition of each flag is still missing. I explained
> >> several times why it's needed. We must be able to answer to these
> >> questions:
> >>
> >> - If I'm developing a PMD, what fields should I check in the packet
> >>     to set a specific flag?
> >> - If I'm developing an application, if a specific flag is set, what
> >>     checks can I skip?
> >>
> >> Example with RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4:
> >>
> >> - IP version field is 4
> >> - no IP options (header size is 20)
> >> - layer 2 identified the packet as IP (ex: ethertype=0x800)
> >>
> >> I think we need such a definition for all packet types.
> > You meant we need a detailed description of each packet type, right?
> > If yes, I can add those information soon. Thanks for the helps!
> 
> Yes, I think this would be really helpful.
OK. Got it. I will add them and send out v4 version. Thanks for your good suggestions!

Regards,
Helin

> 
> Thank you!
> Olivier