Re: [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:14:28 -0500 Arvind Narayanan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:56 PM Cliff Burdick wrote: > > > > It should convert to network order, although many applications it won't > > matter since they use all F's. If you follow the code in flow_filtering, > > indeed it's using: >

Re: [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:56 PM Cliff Burdick wrote: > > It should convert to network order, although many applications it won't > matter since they use all F's. If you follow the code in flow_filtering, > indeed it's using: > > #define FULL_MASK 0x /* full mask */ > > So it won't make

Re: [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?

It should convert to network order, although many applications it won't matter since they use all F's. If you follow the code in flow_filtering, indeed it's using: #define FULL_MASK 0x /* full mask */ So it won't make any difference. The example should probably be updated, though.. On

[dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?

Hi, In the flow_filtering sample application, the IP's mask was set without using htonl(). https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_filtering/flow_blocks.c#L85 Another DPDK page shows how a testpmd command is translated to C code.