Thread (37 messages) 37 messages, 6 authors, 2021-06-08

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] ethdev: add new ext hdr for gtp psc

From: Andrew Rybchenko <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-08 12:18:54

On 6/8/21 3:17 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 4/29/21 11:10 AM, Raslan Darawsheh wrote:
quoted
Define new rte header for gtp PDU session container
based on RFC 38415-g30

Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <redacted>
---
 lib/net/rte_gtp.h | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/net/rte_gtp.h b/lib/net/rte_gtp.h
index 6a6f9b238d..5a850a26e4 100644
--- a/lib/net/rte_gtp.h
+++ b/lib/net/rte_gtp.h
@@ -61,6 +61,84 @@ struct rte_gtp_hdr_ext_word {
 	uint8_t next_ext;     /**< Next Extension Header Type. */
 }  __rte_packed;
 
+/**
+ * Optional extension for GTP with next_ext set to 0x85
+ * defined based on RFC 38415-g30.
+ */
+__extension__
+struct rte_gtp_psc_generic_hdr {
+	uint8_t ext_hdr_len; /**< PDU ext hdr len in multiples of 4 bytes */
+#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
+	uint8_t type:4; /**< PDU type */
+	uint8_t qmp:1; /**< Qos Monitoring Packet */
+	uint8_t pad:3; /**< type specfic pad bits */
+	uint8_t spare:2; /**< type specific spare bits */
+	uint8_t qfi:6; /**< Qos Flow Identifier */
+#else
+	uint8_t qfi:6; /**< Qos Flow Identifier */
+	uint8_t spare:2; /**< type specific spare bits */
+	uint8_t pad:3; /**< type specfic pad bits */
+	uint8_t qmp:1; /**< Qos Monitoring Packet */
+	uint8_t type:4; /**< PDU type */
+#endif
+	uint8_t data[0]; /**< variable length data feilds */
+} __rte_packed;
+
+/**
+ * Optional extension for GTP with next_ext set to 0x85
+ * type0 defined based on RFC 38415-g30
+ */
+__extension__
+struct rte_gtp_psc_type0_hdr {
+	uint8_t ext_hdr_len; /**< PDU ext hdr len in multiples of 4 bytes */
+#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
+	uint8_t type:4; /**< PDU type */
+	uint8_t qmp:1; /**< Qos Monitoring Packet */
+	uint8_t snp:1; /**< Sequence number presence */
+	uint8_t spare_dl1:2; /**< spare down link bits */
+	uint8_t ppp:1; /**< Paging policy presence */
+	uint8_t rqi:1; /**< Reflective Qos Indicator */
+	uint8_t qfi:6; /**< Qos Flow Identifier */
+#else
+	uint8_t qfi:6; /**< Qos Flow Identifier */
+	uint8_t rqi:1; /**< Reflective Qos Indicator */
+	uint8_t ppp:1; /**< Paging policy presence */
+	uint8_t spare_dl1:2; /**< spare down link bits */
+	uint8_t snp:1; /**< Sequence number presence */
+	uint8_t type:4; /**< PDU type */
+#endif
+	uint8_t data[0]; /**< variable length data feilds */
+} __rte_packed;
+
+/**
+ * Optional extension for GTP with next_ext set to 0x85
+ * type1 defined based on RFC 38415-g30
+ */
+__extension__
+struct rte_gtp_psc_type1_hdr {
+	uint8_t ext_hdr_len; /**< PDU ext hdr len in multiples of 4 bytes */
+#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
+	uint8_t type:4; /**< PDU type */
+	uint8_t qmp:1; /**< Qos Monitoring Packet */
+	uint8_t dl_delay_ind:1; /**< dl delay result presence */
+	uint8_t ul_delay_ind:1; /**< ul delay result presence */
+	uint8_t snp:1; /**< Sequence number presence ul */
+	uint8_t n_delay_ind:1; /**< N3/N9 delay result presence */
+	uint8_t spare_ul2:1; /**< spare up link bits */
+	uint8_t qfi:6; /**< Qos Flow Identifier */
+#else
+	uint8_t qfi:6; /**< Qos Flow Identifier */
+	uint8_t spare_ul2:1; /**< spare up link bits */
+	uint8_t n_delay_ind:1; /**< N3/N9 delay result presence */
+	uint8_t snp:1; /**< Sequence number presence ul */
+	uint8_t ul_delay_ind:1; /**< ul delay result presence */
+	uint8_t dl_delay_ind:1; /**< dl delay result presence */
+	uint8_t qmp:1; /**< Qos Monitoring Packet */
+	uint8_t type:4; /**< PDU type */
+#endif
+	uint8_t data[0]; /**< variable length data feilds */
+} __rte_packed;
+
 /** GTP header length */
 #define RTE_ETHER_GTP_HLEN \
 	(sizeof(struct rte_udp_hdr) + sizeof(struct rte_gtp_hdr))
This way the structure is very hard to read.
May I ask to indent field comments as it is done in
other rte_net structures (e.g. rte_ipv4_hdr, rte_udp_hdr,
rte_geneve_hdr). Personally I don't care if it will be
indent by TABs or spaces, however, it looks like TABs are
used in more places.
Also there are spelling bugs [1].

[1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-April/191649.html
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help