03/07/2023 15:31, Bing Zhao: > Hi Stephen, > If I understand correctly, do you mean that the internal value and rte_flow > API value may have some conflict? > All the MLX5 internal enum values start from INT_MIN. When treating it as a > int value, it would not have the same value with rte_flow enums, unless all > the 2^^32 are defined. > But yes, this has some risk since there is no limitation of the values in the > rte_flow API.
We can assume it will never happen. This is good to go. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 2:09 PM > > To: Bing Zhao <[email protected]> > > Cc: Matan Azrad <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko > > <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Suanming Mou > > <[email protected]>; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; Michael Baum <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] net/mlx5: fix the modify field check of tag > > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 08:43:03 +0300 > > Bing Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > @@ -1117,9 +1117,10 @@ flow_dv_fetch_field(const uint8_t *data, > > > uint32_t size) static inline bool > > > flow_modify_field_support_tag_array(enum rte_flow_field_id field) { > > > - switch (field) { > > > + switch ((int)field) { > > > case RTE_FLOW_FIELD_TAG: > > > case RTE_FLOW_FIELD_MPLS: > > > + case MLX5_RTE_FLOW_FIELD_META_REG: > > > > Mixing internal and API fields seems like something that could get easily > > broken by changes to rte_flow. >
