> > > Wait a minute.. does this mean that if the user passes, say, ETH / IPV4 / UDP > > > pattern and the 'spec' and 'mask' of ETH are both 'null', the actual key/mask > > > values in the HW rule will be, say, for the EtherType, '0000' and 'ffff'? > > > Is this correct? And which part of DPDK interface envisages that? > > > > > Again, may be it's just my misunderstanding. > > > > Sorry, I misunderstood and caused you inconvenience. > > If the user does not set 'spec' and 'mask', we will set 'spec' '0000' and mask 'ffff' write fd table to HW, > > not set by DPDK interface. > > If the user set one of 'spec' and 'mask', we will also set 'spec' '0000' and mask 'ffff' write fd table to HW. > > This is how we handle it. > Understood. But is this the best course of action? Say, what happens if the user > passes ETH / IPV4 / UDP pattern items, where 'spec' and 'mask' are 'null' in all > the items? Theoretically, the driver could translate this to set the key to have > EtherType 0x0800/0xffff and IP protocol to be 0x11/0xff . Or am I wrong? > Thank you. Yes, you are right. Currently, our plan is not optimal, and we will take your suggestions as a reference. If there are any optimizations in the future, we will resubmit it. Thank you very much.