diff mbox series

pipeline: fix annotation checks

Message ID 20211203143104.90385-1-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers show
Series pipeline: fix annotation checks | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/iol-aarch64-compile-testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-aarch64-unit-testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-intel-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/iol-intel-Functional success Functional Testing PASS
ci/iol-x86_64-compile-testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-x86_64-unit-testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-broadcom-Functional success Functional Testing PASS
ci/iol-broadcom-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/iol-mellanox-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/github-robot: build success github build: passed
ci/intel-Testing success Testing PASS
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Cristian Dumitrescu Dec. 3, 2021, 2:31 p.m. UTC
The checks for the table-only and default-only annotations were
incorrect, as they were using the pipeline action ID instead of the
table action ID for retrieving the table action info. These checks are
now corrected and pushed into the internal table_entry_check()
function.

Fixes: cd79e0205824 ("pipeline: support action annotations")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Cristian Dumitrescu <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Yogesh Jangra <yogesh.jangra@intel.com>
---
 lib/pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.c b/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.c
index 1c908e3e3f..8e29d58cec 100644
--- a/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.c
+++ b/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_ctl.c
@@ -372,18 +372,34 @@  table_entry_check(struct rte_swx_ctl_pipeline *ctl,
 
 	if (data_check) {
 		struct action *a;
+		struct rte_swx_ctl_table_action_info *tai;
 		uint32_t i;
 
 		/* action_id. */
-		for (i = 0; i < table->info.n_actions; i++)
-			if (entry->action_id == table->actions[i].action_id)
+		for (i = 0; i < table->info.n_actions; i++) {
+			tai = &table->actions[i];
+
+			if (entry->action_id == tai->action_id)
 				break;
+		}
 
 		CHECK(i < table->info.n_actions, EINVAL);
 
 		/* action_data. */
 		a = &ctl->actions[entry->action_id];
 		CHECK(!(a->data_size && !entry->action_data), EINVAL);
+
+		/* When both key_check and data_check are true, we are interested in both the entry
+		 * key and data, which means the operation is _regular_ table entry add.
+		 */
+		if (key_check && !tai->action_is_for_table_entries)
+			return -EINVAL;
+
+		/* When key_check is false while data_check is true, we are only interested in the
+		 * entry data, which means the operation is _default_ table entry add.
+		 */
+		if (!key_check && !tai->action_is_for_default_entry)
+			return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -1446,8 +1462,6 @@  rte_swx_ctl_pipeline_table_entry_add(struct rte_swx_ctl_pipeline *ctl,
 	CHECK(entry, EINVAL);
 	CHECK(!table_entry_check(ctl, table_id, entry, 1, 1), EINVAL);
 
-	CHECK(table->actions[entry->action_id].action_is_for_table_entries, EINVAL);
-
 	new_entry = table_entry_duplicate(ctl, table_id, entry, 1, 1);
 	CHECK(new_entry, ENOMEM);
 
@@ -1653,8 +1667,6 @@  rte_swx_ctl_pipeline_table_default_entry_add(struct rte_swx_ctl_pipeline *ctl,
 	CHECK(entry, EINVAL);
 	CHECK(!table_entry_check(ctl, table_id, entry, 0, 1), EINVAL);
 
-	CHECK(table->actions[entry->action_id].action_is_for_default_entry, EINVAL);
-
 	new_entry = table_entry_duplicate(ctl, table_id, entry, 0, 1);
 	CHECK(new_entry, ENOMEM);