[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/7] ethdev: define new ethdev API rx_classification_filter_ctl
jingjing.wu at intel.com
Thu Aug 28 16:31:34 CEST 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:21 PM
> To: Wu, Jingjing
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/7] ethdev: define new ethdev API
> 2014-08-28 13:39, Wu, Jingjing:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > I'm OK to change APIs but you should remove the old one, or at least,
> > > implement your new API in existing drivers to allow deprecation of the
> > > old API.
> > > I think it would help if you start by doing ixgbe work and then apply it
> > > to i40e.
> > >
> > Yes, it will be perfect if we can use this new API to achieve flow director
> > setting all types of NICs. But the concern is downward compatibility.
> In this case, cleanup is more important than compatibility.
> > Users who is planning update DPDK version need to change their code
> > to adapt such changes.
> Yes, but we can keep deprecated function during 1 release.
> > That's why we choose a new API instead of modifying current APIs. And
> > Of course, the ideal plan is adding such XXX_ctl function in Ixgbe and
> > Igb to moving smoothly without removing current APIs.
> > > I don't think flow director is a specific feature. We shouldn't have
> > > to care if port is i40e or ixgbe to setup flow director.
> > > Is it possible to have a common API and maybe an inheritance of the
> > > common structure with PMD specific fields?
> > Yes, flow director is not a specific feature. Even ixgbe and i40 use the same
> > name. But the context and key have much difference. That's why I called it
> > specific.
> > Yes, it's a good idea about an inheritance of the common structure. I think it
> > may support new NIC integration in future. We can do it with the new API
> > architecture. But the concern is still how to be compatible with old version.
> There is no compatibility blocker here.
> If we can keep deprecated functions a while, we'll do. Otherwise, just go with
> the new API.
> I prefer we concentrate on good design rather than on compatibility.
OK, now I have a rough understanding about your opinion, I guess there will be lots of rework need to be done. I will try. Thanks for your explanation.
More information about the dev