[PATCH 00/11] Add basic flow support for corenic firmware

[Chaoyong He]

> On 11/3/2023 6:25 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
> > Add the very basic rte_flow support for corenic firmware.
> >
> > Chaoyong He (11):
> >   net/nfp: move some source files
> >   drivers: add the structures and functions for flow offload
> >   net/nfp: add the control message channel
> >   net/nfp: support flow API for CoreNIC firmware
> >   net/nfp: support Ethernet flow item
> >   net/nfp: support drop flow action
> >   net/nfp: support IPv4 flow item
> >   net/nfp: support IPv6 flow item
> >   net/nfp: support TCP/UDP/SCTP flow items
> >   drivers: support MARK flow action
> >   net/nfp: support QUEUE flow action
> >
> 
> Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-unit-amd64-testing

Seems both compile problems was introduced by this commit:
https://github.com/Corigine/dpdk-next-net-private/commit/34ff088cc24159c9fa6e61242efb76d0289b4e37

```
ethdev: set and query RSS hash algorithm
Currently, rte_eth_rss_conf supports configuring and querying
RSS hash functions, rss key and it's length, but not RSS hash
algorithm.

The structure ``rte_eth_dev_info`` is extended by adding a new
field "rss_algo_capa". Drivers are responsible for reporting this
capa and configurations of RSS hash algorithm can be verified based
on the capability. The default value of "rss_algo_capa" is
RTE_ETH_HASH_ALGO_CAPA_MASK(DEFAULT) if drivers do not report it.

The structure ``rte_eth_rss_conf`` is extended by adding a new
field "algorithm". This represents the RSS algorithms to apply.
If the value of "algorithm" used for configuration is a gibberish
value, drivers should report the error.

To check whether the drivers report valid "algorithm", it is set
to default value before querying in rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_conf_get().

Signed-off-by: Jie Hai <haijie1 at huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3 at huawei.com>
Acked-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong at huawei.com>
Acked-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen at huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
```

Which was not related with this patch series, I think?