[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ethdev: add mark flow item to flow item types

[Adrien Mazarguil]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:10:11AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:04 PM, Adrien Mazarguil:
> >
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ethdev: add mark flow item to flow
> > item types
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:04:21PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote:
> > > Introduces a new action type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_MARK which enables
> > > flow patterns to specify arbitrary integer values to match aginst
> > 
> > Typo on "aginst".
> > 
> > > which are set by the RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK action in a
> > previously
> > > matched flow from a higher prioriry group.
> > 
> > prioriry => priority, however this last addition is unnecessary, it could be any
> > prior flow rule that happens to use PASSTHRU.
> > 
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 28
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h        | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > index 325010544..6f23ad909 100644
> > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > @@ -598,6 +598,34 @@ associated with a port_id should be retrieved by
> > other means.
> > >     | ``mask`` | ``index`` | zeroed to match any port index |
> > >     +----------+-----------+--------------------------------+
> > >
> > > +Item: ``MARK``
> > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > +
> > > +Matches packets coming from a previously matched flow in a higher
> > > +priority group
> > 
> > See above re "higher priority group".
> > 
> > > +with an arbitrary integer value which was set using the ``MARK``
> > > +action in the previously matched rule.
> > > +
> 
> Why we have to bind It with the MARK? It is HW limitation or design consideration? 
> 
> My understanding is you want flow action of setting metadata to be used later as a matching item for the flows on other group.
> It doesn't have to, but can be, bounded with the specific mark the application wants to receive. 

Yes, no problem with that, I was only commenting the wording of the
description. It reads like it'll only work if a prior MARK action found in a
*different* group set a mark to match. My point was that it could also be a
prior rule in the same group. It could even be added by the device by some
other means.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND