[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170629150004.GB6215@vergenet.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:00:06 +0200
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
Pieter Jansen van Vuuren
<pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/9] nfp: extend flower matching capabilities
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Simon Horman
> <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > +nfp_flower_compile_meta_tci(struct nfp_flower_meta_two *frame,
> > + struct tc_cls_flower_offload *flow, u8 key_type,
> > + bool mask_version)
>
> what's the role of the mask_version flag here and elsewhere in the
> sister functions?
Hi Or,
I chatted with Pieter about this and my understanding is that metadata
comes in pairs; masked and umasked. The mask_version parameter controls
which of the pair is compiled.
>
> > +{
> > + struct flow_dissector_key_vlan *flow_vlan;
> > + u16 tmp_tci;
> > +
> > + /* Populate the metadata frame. */
> > + frame->nfp_flow_key_layer = key_type;
> > + frame->mask_id = ~0;
> > +
> > + if (mask_version) {
> > + frame->tci = cpu_to_be16(~0);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists