[PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add VXLAN last reserved field

[Dariusz Sosnowski]

> > 04/06/2024 14:38, Rongwei Liu:
> > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ static const char *const flow_field_ids[] = {
> > >       "ipv6_flow_label", "ipv6_traffic_class",
> > >       "esp_spi", "esp_seq_num", "esp_proto",
> > >       "random",
> > > +     "vxlan_last_rsvd",
> > >       NULL
> > >  };
> >
> > How vxlan_last_rsvd is linked to RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 in testpmd?
> > Just because it is the same order?

Yes, it's because of the order.
We should refactor this to use array designators.

> > > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > @@ -2428,6 +2428,7 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id {
> > >       RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_SEQ_NUM,     /**< ESP Sequence Number. */
> > >       RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_PROTO,       /**< ESP next protocol value. */
> > >       RTE_FLOW_FIELD_RANDOM,          /**< Random value. */
> > > +     RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1,     /**< VXLAN last reserved byte. */
> > >  };
> >
> > I think we should use the same naming as in testpmd.
> > What about RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD?
> To be honest, no strong objection per my personal thought.  Considering the API "vxlan_hdr" names this field as "uint8_t rsvd1", maybe RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 will be clearer for user as 1 vs 1 mapping?

+1 on using RSVD1 so it matches rte_vxlan_hdr definition.

In this patch, "vxlan_last_rsvd" is used in testpmd, so it matches existing "last_rsvd" field in VXLAN item.
If we choose to use "rsvd1", we should probably rename all other instances of "last_rsvd" to match.

Best regards,
Dariusz Sosnowski