Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT 2/2] api: packet: add function to free multiple packets at once

On 29 September 2015 at 13:48, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin > --- > include/odp/api/packet.h | 11 +++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/odp/api/packet.h

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXTv2 2/7] api: packet: add functions to alloc/free multiple packets at once

Hi, I am not sure whether we need this call for alloc multiple packets at once. The reason being in a high speed data plane system the packets which are allocated and not processed will result in holding up of pool space which will result in dropping of the incoming packets if the pool space is

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] validation: classification: Add init calls for pool parameters

For the series Reviewed-and-tested-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 23 September 2015 at 06:11, Bill Fischofer wrote: > Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer > --- >

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] linux-generic: pktio: enable classifier only when needed

In this case the packet will not be dispatched to the default CoS in the scenario when the application configures only the default CoS and not the PMRs. Is this the expected behaviour? in case not then pktio_cls_enabled_set() should be configured in the odp_pktio_default_cos_set() function also.

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2 0/4] linux-generic: add pktio pcap type

This method of using pcap file to generate packets is fine. But why should we use a dedicated interface with "pcap" as the name? I was imagining something like an ODP application which reads from a given pcap file constructs the packet and sends the packet through an interface. The concern I

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2 0/4] classification API name change

Ping. On 25 August 2015 at 19:45, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > No more comments, reviews? > > Maxim. > > On 08/11/15 15:10, Balasubramanian Manoharan wrote: >> >> Changes in v2: Adds bug link in the patch description >> >> 1. This patch series renames the classification APIs

[lng-odp] Fwd: [API-NEXT PATCHv3 2/4] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_CUSTOM_FRAME

Hi, I have added the following comment on this patch 2/4 regarding the naming for this patch. Other than this I am fine with this patch. Regards, Bala -- Forwarded message -- From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org Date: 20 August 2015 at 17:48 Subject: Re:

Re: [lng-odp] [ARCH] Order Resolution APIs

On 26 August 2015 at 16:27, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext Bill Fischofer Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:26 AM To: LNG ODP Mailman List Subject: [lng-odp] [ARCH] Order

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v8] api: packet: allow access to packet flow hash values

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 27 August 2015 at 13:27, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: Reviewed-by: Petri Savolainen petri.savolai...@nokia.com -Original Message- From: lng-odp

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v6] api: packet: allow access to packet flow hash values

Hi Zoltan, Few comments inline... On 24 August 2015 at 22:18, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote: Applications can read the computed hash (if any) and set it if they want to store any extra information in it. Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org --- v2: - focus on RSS

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v6] api: packet: allow access to packet flow hash values

Hi, On 25 August 2015 at 16:09, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: -Original Message- From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext Bala Manoharan Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:14 PM To: Zoltan Kiss Cc: LNG ODP

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v4 1/3] api: pool: add packet user area initializer for pool creation parameters

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 15 August 2015 at 00:25, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote: Applications can preset certain parts of the packet user area, so when that memory will be allocated it starts from a known state. If the platform allocates

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v3 1/3] api: packet: allow access to packet RSS hash values

Hi, On 20 August 2015 at 17:32, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: The RSS is relevant to packets originating from a NIC and is independent of the CoS or other flow designators. It's there mainly because some applications (e.g., OVS) use it internally, so it's for legacy

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Hi Ivan, On 19 August 2015 at 15:02, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Hi Bala, just several comments I forgot to mention. On 19.08.15 08:45, Bala Manoharan wrote: Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 22:39, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org mailto:ivan.khoronz

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 22:39, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: post test review. I've tested. It works for me. (except UDP/TCP src, as it's not supported). Why you didn't add here others PMR? Are you planing it after? Also there is no some inter-PMR tests, like: 1 -

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 21:15, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, On 18.08.15 18:16, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 19:22, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, Bala Note: Your

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 21:43, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, On 18.08.15 18:54, Bala Manoharan wrote: Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 21:15, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, On 18.08.15 18:16

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Hi Ivan, On 18 August 2015 at 19:22, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, Bala Note: Your patch is based on API-NEXT and it obliged me to do some modifications with odp_pktio_param_t before testing. Also I'm still not sure about using odp_pmr_terms_cap(), but maybe it's OK

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Ping. On 14 August 2015 at 22:00, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: On 14.08.15 19:29, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi Ivan, I am planning to add MAC support in a separate patch. I believe MAC should be easier to get-in since it has been agreed. Ok

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 2/3] test: validation: classification: unused variable

I agree with Bill. retval should be tested for success in this case. Regards, Bala On 14 August 2015 at 01:24, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: retval is not used, remove it Signed-off-by: Mike

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Hi Ivan, I am planning to add MAC support in a separate patch. I believe MAC should be easier to get-in since it has been agreed. Regards, Bala On 14 August 2015 at 21:57, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, Bala Just checked if you added real MAC and seems you forgot to.

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: pool: add buffer constructor for pool creation parameters

Hi, Comments inline... On 12 August 2015 at 00:01, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote: Applications can preset certain parts of the buffer or user area, so when that memory will be allocated it starts from a known state. If the platform allocates the memory during pool creation, it's

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: pool: add buffer constructor for pool creation parameters

then application will have to reset the user-area before calling odp_packet_free() API. Regards, Bala I've added an agenda item for this to today's ARCH call. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: On 12 August 2015 at 16:17, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: pool: add buffer constructor for pool creation parameters

On 12 August 2015 at 18:34, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote: On 12/08/15 11:55, Bala Manoharan wrote: On 12 August 2015 at 16:17, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: On 12 August 2015 at 15:37, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote: On 12/08/15 07:34, Bala

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: pool: add buffer constructor for pool creation parameters

on the first segment. This is just an implementation detail and we can leave this topic since I believe we are both on the same page. Regards, Bala On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: On 12 August 2015 at 18:34, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv7 05/13] api: schedule: revised definition of odp_schedule_release_ordered

Hi, On 5 August 2015 at 04:11, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org --- include/odp/api/schedule.h | 38 -- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

On 3 August 2015 at 21:23, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: As a proposition, we had talk some time ago about, You moved packet creation to common classification file. Maybe it's time to assign correct src/dst MAC address, taken from pktio? In separate patch. Yes. I agree

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

On 3 August 2015 at 21:44, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: One more issue On 30.07.15 18:20, Balasubramanian Manoharan wrote: Additional test suite is added to classification validation suite to test individual PMRs. This suite will test the defined PMRs by configuring

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

On 3 August 2015 at 22:01, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: On 03.08.15 19:24, Bala Manoharan wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 21:44, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: One more issue On 30.07.15 18:20

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

On 3 August 2015 at 22:16, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, ... what in case of TCP? Incorrect seq num? Looks like a coding error. TCP should be added using a boolean flag. Incorrect seq num is tested in the ASSERT function after

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Hi, On 3 August 2015 at 17:52, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, Bala On 30.07.15 18:20, Balasubramanian Manoharan wrote: Additional test suite is added to classification validation suite to test individual PMRs. This suite will test the defined PMRs by configuring

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv3 5/6] api: schedule: revised definition of odp_schedule_release_ordered

On 31 July 2015 at 17:48, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, Comments inline... On 31 July 2015 at 08:11, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv3 5/6] api: schedule: revised definition of odp_schedule_release_ordered

On 31 July 2015 at 20:03, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: On 31 July 2015 at 17:48, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Bala Manoharan

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] validation: classification: added additional suite to test individual PMRs

Hi Christophe, Thanks for pointing this out :) I had started this work before the naming conventions were mandated. I will follow the naming conventions followed here before my final patch is out. I will update these changes along with review comments I get ;) Regards, Bala On 31 July 2015 at

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv3 5/6] api: schedule: revised definition of odp_schedule_release_ordered

Hi, Comments inline... On 31 July 2015 at 08:11, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org --- include/odp/api/schedule.h | 38 -- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff

Re: [lng-odp] RFC - Application counters helpers

!= ODPH_COUNTER_INVALID) val = odph_counter_read_global(_arg-thread_tbl, _arg-num, sa_db_entry-packets); .. } Hope this helps, Alex On 30 July 2015 at 07:20, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: Hi

Re: [lng-odp] RFC - Application counters helpers

Hi, Maybe we need additional API for initialising the counter to reset it to zero and also a need for decrementing the counter? IMO, we need to properly document the use-case of these counter API functions since these counters are thread-specific what will the different between using these APIs

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT RFC] api: packet: add define for max segmentation

On 23 July 2015 at 12:09, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: On 07/23/2015 07:43 AM, Bala Manoharan wrote: On 21 July 2015 at 13:05, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: On 07/20/2015 07:24 PM, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi, Few comments

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT RFC] api: packet: add define for max segmentation

On 24 July 2015 at 14:44, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: On 07/24/2015 11:10 AM, Bala Manoharan wrote: On 23 July 2015 at 12:09, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: On 07/23/2015 07:43 AM, Bala Manoharan wrote: On 21 July 2015

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC/API-NEXT] api: assigning packet pool per class of service

Agreed. Please raise a BUG against me on this topic and I will send a patch to change them. Regards, Bala On 24 July 2015 at 17:38, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: For consistency with ODP naming conventions there should be a standard getter/setter for this information that

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT RFC] api: packet: add define for max segmentation

nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: On 07/20/2015 07:24 PM, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi, Few comments inline On 20 July 2015 at 22:38, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: Replace current segmentation with an explicit define. This mainly means two things: - All

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT RFC] api: packet: add define for max segmentation

On 21 July 2015 at 13:05, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: On 07/20/2015 07:24 PM, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi, Few comments inline On 20 July 2015 at 22:38, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: Replace current segmentation

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT RFC] api: packet: add define for max segmentation

Hi, Few comments inline On 20 July 2015 at 22:38, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: Replace current segmentation with an explicit define. This mainly means two things: - All code can now test and check the max segmentation which will prove useful for tests and open the

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] api: pool: add headroom init parameter to odp_pool_param_t

API's, as you said before. Regards, Genís Riera Pérez. Genís Riera Pérez Software Engineer at StarFlow Networks Edifici K2M, S103 c/ Jordi Girona 31 08034 Barcelona E-mail: gri...@starflownetworks.com On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] api: pool: add headroom init parameter to odp_pool_param_t

Girona 31 08034 Barcelona E-mail: gri...@starflownetworks.com On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: Hi Genis, I would like you to validate whether the options of adding headroom per CoS work for you. IMO, adding headroom per CoS makes more

Re: [lng-odp] Receive only packets that match configured PMRs

Hi Stuart, Pls raise a bug for POOL_DROP implementation. I will implement drop policy. Regards, Bala On 17 July 2015 at 19:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: odp_cos_set_drop() should certainly be implemented. If it's not that should be reported as a bug against both the

Re: [lng-odp] Receive only packets that match configured PMRs

On 17 July 2015 at 20:56, Stuart Haslam stuart.has...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:43:08PM +0530, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi Stuart, Pls raise a bug for POOL_DROP implementation. I will implement drop policy. Regards, Bala Will do. I assume

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: classification: fix ODP_PMR_IPPROTO capability check

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org P.S: May be the patch description needs to change On 14 July 2015 at 18:36, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: I suppose, the intention was to check only ODP_PMR_IPPROTO capability. Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

Hi Ivan, Comments Inline... On 15 July 2015 at 02:48, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: It's simple improvement is intended to open eyes on possible hidden issues when a packet can be lost (or sent to def CoS) while matching one of the rules of first PMR match set, but

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

On 15 July 2015 at 14:49, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, On 15.07.15 11:31, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi Ivan, Comments Inline... On 15 July 2015 at 02:48, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: It's simple

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] linux-generic: classification: add support for ODP_PMR_IPSEC_SPI

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 14 July 2015 at 17:28, Stuart Haslam stuart.has...@linaro.org wrote: Signed-off-by: Stuart Haslam stuart.has...@linaro.org --- platform/linux-generic/include/odp_classification_inlines.h | 13 - 1 file changed,

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS

On 7 July 2015 at 18:34, Benoît Ganne bga...@kalray.eu wrote: In this case of ABS_OFFSET_L2 failure during creation is better as the application can better handle the code for different implementations supporting different number of OFFSET term values rather than failing in the context in

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS

On 3 July 2015 at 21:22, Benoît Ganne bga...@kalray.eu wrote: Hi Bala, This signature should work fine. Can we additionally add the pktio interface information also to this API so that the implementation could fail during creation itself if more than the supported numbers get attached to

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS

On 2 July 2015 at 19:03, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: -Original Message- From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext Benoît Ganne Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:53 PM To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS

Hi, I have a few concerns with this API proposal, 1. The term ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS could be renamed as ODP_PMR_OFFSET_L2 as this offset is from L2. This would help some platforms which can support additional offset from custom layer other than L2 and they can add additional Enum in their private

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS

Hi Ben, Pls find my comments inline. On 2 July 2015 at 18:48, Benoît Ganne bga...@kalray.eu wrote: Hi Bala, Thanks for your feedback. My comments inline. 1. The term ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS could be renamed as ODP_PMR_OFFSET_L2 as this offset is from L2. This would help some platforms which

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/3] api: classification: add ODP_PMR_OFFSET_ABS

On 2 July 2015 at 21:17, Benoît Ganne bga...@kalray.eu wrote: Hi Bala, I'd define it like this, odp_pmr_t odp_pmr_create_custom(uint32_t offset, const void *val, const void *mask, uint32_t val_sz); It would fail if the requested custom rule is not supported or too many custom rules are

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2 3/3] test: pktio: reduce pools seg_len to test segmented packets

If the idea of this patch is to test segmented packets it can be accomplished by allocating packets of size greater than seg_len in an additional test case rather than modifying the segment length in pool create function. Regards, Bala On 30 June 2015 at 22:26, Stuart Haslam

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2 3/3] test: pktio: reduce pools seg_len to test segmented packets

: On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:00:07PM +0530, Bala Manoharan wrote: If the idea of this patch is to test segmented packets it can be accomplished by allocating packets of size greater than seg_len in an additional test case rather than modifying the segment length in pool create function. Regards

Re: [lng-odp] Classification API clarity

On 25 June 2015 at 02:48, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: On 24.06.15 19:57, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi Ivan, Pls see my comments inline. On 24 June 2015 at 09:13, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Guys, sorry I

Re: [lng-odp] Classification API clarity

Hi Ivan, Pls see my comments inline. On 24 June 2015 at 09:13, Ivan Khoronzhuk ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org wrote: Guys, sorry I didn't ask the following questions during the ODP meeting. I had an issue with my microphone and it seems the call was ended quickly. But I need to ask. Maybe it's

[lng-odp] [ODP/RFC v2 1/1] example: classification example

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org This is a UDP source port based loopback application which creates multiple packet output queues for given UDP port numbers and attaches them to the given pktio interface. The default packet are enqueued into the lowest priority value.

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 1/2] example: classifier: check sscanf return code

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 10 June 2015 at 17:36, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu --- example/classifier/odp_classifier.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2

Re: [lng-odp] Apply multiple filters using ODP Classifier API

Hi, There is a possibility in classification configuration to attach multiple PMR rules at the pktio level. I believe the above example you have described could be solved using the following rules pmr1 = odp_pmr_create(rule1); pmr2 = odp_pmr_create(rule2); odp_pktio_pmr_match_set_cos(pmr1,

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: pktio: don't use reserved UDP port 0

We need the fix for IP address also in the same function as the src and dst ip address are also kept as zero. Regards, Bala On 10 June 2015 at 20:55, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: I always fix that for debugging :) Maxim. On 06/10/15 18:00, Stuart Haslam wrote: The test

Re: [lng-odp] Apply multiple filters using ODP Classifier API

: genis.riera.pe...@gmail.com 2015-06-10 15:25 GMT+02:00 Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org: Hi, There is a possibility in classification configuration to attach multiple PMR rules at the pktio level. I believe the above example you have described could be solved using the following

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: pktio: do not dequeue from scheduled queue

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 2 June 2015 at 20:16, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: packet i/o test can create 2 types of queues: scheduled and polled. Do not do dequeue from scheduled queue. https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1383

[lng-odp] [ODP/RFC 2/2] example: egress classifier example

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org This is a vlan priority based L2 loopback application which creates multiple packet output queues for each vlan priority value and attaches them to the given pktio interface. The packets are enqueued into different packet output queues

[lng-odp] [ODP/RFC 1/2] linux-generic: egress classification implementation

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org This is linux-generic implementation of egress classification. This is a lock-less implementation for output packet scheduling, shaping and rate limitting. Multiple packet output queues with different priority values can be created and

Re: [lng-odp] loopback interface

Hi, Yes. Lookback interface should behave like other interfaces in the system and classification rules if set should get applied. Regards, Bala On 28 May 2015 at 14:51, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: Is the loopback interface supposed to be supported in all ODP implementations?

[lng-odp] Fwd: [PATCH 1/3] example: classifier: remove extra local init

Subject: RE: [lng-odp] [PATCH 1/3] example: classifier: remove extra local init To: ext Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org Cc: LNG ODP Mailman List lng-odp@lists.linaro.org I noticed the same and will add that documentation. -Petri From: ext Bala Manoharan [mailto:bala.manoha

Re: [lng-odp] odp_classifier issue

Yes. I am also searching this patch in the repo. Looks like the patch from Petri has been missed. Regards, Bala On 28 May 2015 at 18:31, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: I send a patch that corrected this, but not sure what happened to it. -Petri

Re: [lng-odp] buffer_alloc length parameter

On 27 May 2015 at 14:04, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 27 May 2015 at 08:00, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, On 26 May 2015 at 20:14, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote: On 26/05/15 12:19, Bala Manoharan wrote: In the current API

Re: [lng-odp] buffer_alloc length parameter

In the current API the odp_packet_alloc() function always takes len as input parameter and hence it is not required to support any default size. In case of odp_buffer_alloc() the default value of allocation will be equal to the size parameter which will be the value given during odp_pool_create()

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] example: classifier: check for null token

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 15 May 2015 at 02:53, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: fixes https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1534 Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org --- The case sudo ./example/classifier/odp_classifier -i

Re: [lng-odp] Query regarding sequence number update in IPSEC application

it cannot guarantee the ingress order preservation if incoming packets are picked up by different cores and submitted to seq number queue in different order. Regards Nikhil From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Bala Manoharan Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5

Re: [lng-odp] Classification: APIs deferred from ODP v1.0

Hi, These APIs are in the list of changes required for classification and will be introduced in the next version of ODP. Regards, Bala On 13 May 2015 at 15:12, Agrawal Hemant hem...@freescale.com wrote: HI, What is the plan to re-introduce the flow signature based distribution APIs

Re: [lng-odp] Query regarding sequence number update in IPSEC application

On 12 May 2015 at 18:06, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 12 May 2015 at 14:28, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: IMO, using atomic variable instead of atomic queues will work for this Ipsec example use-case as in this case the critical section is required only

Re: [lng-odp] Query regarding sequence number update in IPSEC application

IMO, using atomic variable instead of atomic queues will work for this Ipsec example use-case as in this case the critical section is required only for updating the sequence number but in a generic use-case the atomicity should be protected over a region of code which the application wants to be

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 1/3] example: classifier: remove extra local init

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org IMO, we can add additional information in odph_linux_pthread_create() header file documentation that this function is expected to call odp_init_local() for the thread it creates. Current documentation only says the following /** *

Re: [lng-odp] Query on classification's rules ordering

Hi, Cos configured using PMR takes precedence over CoS configured using L2 and L3 priority and QoS values. Among L2 and L3 values, odp_cos_with_l3_qos() function contains a boolean L3_precedence which indicates whether L2 or L3 priority value takes precedence. Hope this helps, Bala On 6 May

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT 4/5] api: packet_io: added parse mode

() */ }; }; } odp_packet_parse_flags_t; Regards, Bala On 29 April 2015 at 12:46, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, We can optimize the odp_packet_parse_flags_t in the following way to handle the layered approach for parsing +typedef struct odp_packet_parse_flags_t { + uint32_t eth:1

[lng-odp] [PATCHv1] example: classifier: remove odp_pmr_create_range() support

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org This patch removes support for odp_pmr_create_range() function in the classifier example application. Signed-off-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org --- example/classifier/odp_classifier.c | 106

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT 4/5] api: packet_io: added parse mode

Hi, We can optimize the odp_packet_parse_flags_t in the following way to handle the layered approach for parsing +typedef struct odp_packet_parse_flags_t { + uint32_t eth:1; /** See odp_packet_has_eth() */ + uint32_t jumbo:1; /** See odp_packet_has_jumbo() */ +

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT 4/5] api: packet_io: added parse mode

one way or another. -Petri -Original Message- From: ext Bala Manoharan [mailto:bala.manoha...@linaro.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:25 AM To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) Cc: ext Zoltan Kiss; lng-odp@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT 4/5] api

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 1/3] test: classification: add missing init of atomic variable

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 24 April 2015 at 19:23, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu --- test/validation/classification/odp_classification_tests.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 2/3] linux-generic: packet_io: init l2 and l3 cos table spinlocks

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org On 24 April 2015 at 19:23, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu wrote: Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu --- platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv3] example: ODP classifier example

On 21 April 2015 at 16:57, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, one more comment. Please do parsing arguments before odp init. Sorry missed this comment. parsing argument uses odp shared memory and we cannot call it before odp init() function. Regards, Bala About this code Mike

[lng-odp] [PATCHv4] example: ODP classifier example

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org ODP Classifier example This programs gets pmr rules as command-line parameter and configures the classification engine in the system. This initial version supports the following * ODP_PMR_SIP_ADDR pmr term * PMR term MATCH and RANGE

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: odp_pool: add double destroy

On 23 April 2015 at 16:56, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: On 04/23/15 13:09, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: On 04/22/2015 08:54 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote: On 04/22/15 19:06, Ciprian Barbu wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: On 04/22/15

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv3] example: ODP classifier example

On 21 April 2015 at 16:57, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: Bala, one more comment. Please do parsing arguments before odp init. About this code Mike found that it will be abort if you do not run it under root due to unable do raw socket operations. pktio =

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: classification: connect PMR on creation

On 21 April 2015 at 18:15, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 21 April 2015 at 14:26, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: On 04/21/15 15:01, Bill Fischofer wrote: Behavior is undefined if rules are ambiguous. Consider the following rules: protocol == UDP -- CoS A

[lng-odp] [PATCHv3] example: ODP classifier example

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org ODP Classifier example This programs gets pmr rules as command-line parameter and configures the classification engine in the system. This initial version supports the following * ODP_PMR_SIP_ADDR pmr term * PMR term MATCH and RANGE

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] api: classification: Create PMR handle on its application

On 9 April 2015 at 14:38, Taras Kondratiuk taras.kondrat...@linaro.org wrote: + mailing list that I've missed initially in the RFC. On 04/08/2015 10:25 PM, Rosenboim, Leonid wrote: Taras, I actually agree with you that a change in the API is justified that combines the in and out CoS

[lng-odp] [PATCHv2] example: ODP classifier example

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org ODP Classifier example This programs gets pmr rules as command-line parameter and configures the classification engine in the system. This initial version supports the following * ODP_PMR_SIP_ADDR pmr term * PMR term MATCH and RANGE

Re: [lng-odp] NO ODP API for Packet classification and Packet Shaping

I would like to get application use-case for different scenarios where this would be useful before finalizing pool groups and their API signature. Also in the above proposal it is not possible to combine multiple pools to form a pool group, I like this idea as it gives freedom for implementation

Re: [lng-odp] NO ODP API for Packet classification and Packet Shaping

On 3 April 2015 at 22:00, Taras Kondratiuk taras.kondrat...@linaro.org wrote: On 03/30/2015 03:34 PM, Zhujianhua wrote: @ Jerin Jacob: What will happen if odp_cos_set_pool(odp_cos_t cos_id, odp_buffer_pool_t pool_id) was called twice? Will the new pool_id replace the old one or the CoS have

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC 5/8] api: packet_io: added packet input queue API definitions

Hi, Since we have the concept of a default CoS in classification, why cant we associate the above APIs to default CoS, in that way we can avoid linking this hash function directly to pktio. coz there comes a discrepancy now as to what happens when both this API and classification are configured

[lng-odp] [PATCHv2] fix: incorrect pmr_term_value update in odp_pmr_create_xxx() function

From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org Fix for incorrect pmr_term_value update in odp_pmr_create_match() and odp_pmr_create_range() functions. Fixes https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381 Signed-off-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org --- v2: Fixes

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC v3 0/4] Move the definition of odp syncronizers abstract types to platform

For this series. Reviewed-by: Bala Manoharanbala.manoha...@linaro.org On 20 March 2015 at 17:44, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:29:03AM -0500, Bill Fischofer wrote: Ping This version looks good. For this series: Reviewed-and-tested-by: Bill

<    1   2   3   4   5   >