On 10/6/21 11:30 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

05/10/2021 13:11, Andrew Rybchenko:

quoted

On 10/5/21 1:10 PM, Ori Kam wrote:

quoted

From: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>

quoted

On 10/5/21 12:41 PM, Ori Kam wrote:

quoted

From: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>

quoted

On 10/5/21 11:17 AM, Ori Kam wrote:

quoted

One more thing, I think this flag should be added now since you need
it, I think you should report that you don't support it.
since just like we talked there is no real difference between metadata and

MARK.

quoted

quoted

quoted

What do you think?

It sounds like a trick :) Negative support is *not* a support in
fact. DPDK policy requires support of a feature in a PMD and in-tree
application. Of course, it is not a problem to add meta. It is really
easy to do. I just don't want to add it in
v5 to be deleted in v6 because of my above concerns.

This was not a trick. I understand what you are saying.
if we say that metadata is the same as mark, (I think we all agree on
it) and that application need to notify pmd about such operations, I
assume it will try to see how to request the metadata.

Frankly speaking I feel sick when I think about META and MARK together. Do
we really need both in DPDK?

I realy don't want you the be sick,
The resoun that we need both of them is that 32 in Nvidia it is only 24 bits of mark is not
enough, so there is a need for more bits.
I think that in the end we will go to something much more generic that the application
will just say how many bits it wants to get and this what he will get.
for example the application may say it needs 128 bits and it will register this size to the mbuf
or give in the mbuf pointer two where those values should be set.
In any case as you can see we have already to many changes in rte_flow in this release and the
next one, but I'm planning to push this feature in the future
what do you think of such a feature?

I agree that there are really many changes in flow API which
are on review in the release cycle.
I hope the above idea will allow to merge MARK and META.

I agree we should merge mark and meta in a common dynamic mbuf field.
What do we need in mark which is not in meta?
I think dynamic mbuf field of meta is the way to go but I prefer the name "mark" :)

+1 but I don't have answer to the question