[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 01/11] ethdev: add extensions attributes to IPv6 item

[Thomas Monjalon]

12/10/2020 12:43, Dekel Peled:
> - * Note: IPv6 options are handled by dedicated pattern items, see
> - * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_EXT.
> + * Dedicated flags indicate existence of specific extension headers.
> + * Every type of extension header can use a dedicated pattern item, or
> + * the generic item RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_EXT.

I don't understand this last sentence.

>   */
>  struct rte_flow_item_ipv6 {
>  	struct rte_ipv6_hdr hdr; /**< IPv6 header definition. */
> +	uint32_t hop_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Hop-by-Hop Options extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t rout_ext_exist:1;

"rout" looks weird. Would be "route" appropriate?

> +	/**< Routing extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t frag_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Fragment extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t auth_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Authentication extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t esp_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Encapsulation Security Payload extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t dest_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Destination Options extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t mobil_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Mobility extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t hip_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Host Identity Protocol extension header exists. */
> +	uint32_t shim6_ext_exist:1;
> +	/**< Shim6 Protocol extension header exists. */

About the field names, the "_exist" suffix is pretty clear,
but without being able to say why, I feel it is a strange name.
I was thinking about renaming the fields with a "has_" prefix.
Does it look better?