[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:34:36 -0700
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org, olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev]  [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type
> 
> External Email
> 
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:29:05 +0530
> Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:31:10 -0700
> > > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org, olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev]  [PATCH] mbuf: add IGMP packet type
> > >
> > > External Email
> > >
> > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 18:08:35 +0530
> > > Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add support for IGMP packet type.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> > >
> > > Could you add logic to recoginize IGMP to the software packet type identification
> > > rte_net_get_ptype used by drivers that don't have hardware support.
> >
> > If everyone agrees then I can do it as adding IGMP support will reduce
> > the performance of rte_net_get_ptype() and most of the NIC may not need it.
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > >
> > > Also shouldn't this bit be part of RTE_PTYPE_L4_MASK?
> >
> > The RTE_PTYPE_L4_MASK is 0x00000f00 so it is part it. Right?
> 
> Then you must add it to the software matcher since most drivers are advertising L4_MASK

Which driver returns .dev_supported_ptypes_get ethdev ops with L4_MASK?

>