[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add support for new metadata api

[Alejandro Lucero]

Hi Ferruh,

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:

> On 12/20/2016 2:13 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > NFP is a smart programmable NIC and firmware is deployed for specific
> > system needs, like offloading OVS, vRouter, contrack or eBPF into the
> > hardware. This often requires to give metadata to the host within
> > packets delivered. Last NFP firmware implementations support richer
> > metadata api facilitating interaction between firmware and host code.
> >
> > Old way of handling metadata needs to be still there for supporting
> > old firmware.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero at netronome.com>
> > ---
>
> <...>
>
> > +
> > +     } else if (NFP_DESC_META_LEN(rxd)) {
> > +             meta_offset = (uint8_t *)mbuf->buf_addr;
> > +             meta_info = rte_be_to_cpu_32(*(uint32_t *)meta_offset);
> > +             meta_offset += 4;
> > +             /* NFP PMD just supports metadata for hashing */
> > +             switch (meta_info & NFP_NET_META_FIELD_MASK) {
> > +             case NFP_NET_META_HASH:
> > +                     meta_info >>= NFP_NET_META_FIELD_SIZE;
> > +                     hash = rte_be_to_cpu_32(*(uint32_t *)meta_offset);
> > +                     hash_type = meta_info && NFP_NET_META_FIELD_MASK;
>
> I already applied this patch but above "&&" looks wrong.
> Most probably intention is "bitwise AND" (&), do you want me fix this as
> "&" or remove the patch completely to replace with new version?
>
>
Yes, that is wrong. I wonder how related tests did not fail. I'll check
that right now.

Maybe it is better to wait for another patch version or at least to be sure
that simple change is good enough.
Let me to peer into those tests and re-run them with that fix applied.


> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
>