[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/7] ethdev: define new ethdev API rx_classification_filter_ctl

[Wu, Jingjing]

HI, Thomas

Just as zhang, helin's said in his pacth "[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add new ops of 'check_command_supported' and 'rx_classification_filter_ctl'":

'rx_classification_filter_ctl' is for receive classification filter configuring. e.g. hash function configuration, flow director configuration. It is a common API where a lot of commands can be implemented for different sub features.
We want to implement several common API for NIC specific features, to avoid creating quite a lot of ops in 'struct eth_dev_ops'. The idea came from ioctl.

Because about flow director feature, there is large gap between i40e and ixgbe. The existed flow director APIs looks specific to IXGBE, so I choose this new API to implement i40e's flow director feature.

Here, I briefly describe how the new 'rx_classification_filter_ctl' works:

The API is like below:
typedef int (*eth_rx_classification_filter_ctl_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
						  enum rte_eth_command cmd,
						  void *arg);
Define a head file called rte_i40e.h in lib/librte_pmd_i40e, which contains the definition about structures specific to i40e, linked to the arg parameters above.
Define a head file called rte_eth_features.h in lib/librte_ether, which contains the commands' definition linked to cmd parameters above.
And if user want to use i40e specific features, then the head file rte_i40e.h need to be included user's application, for example, test-pmd. And user can encode these structures and call XXX_ctl API to configure their features.

Do you think it make sense?

And about the rename things, I will move it to a separate patch.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:23 PM
> To: Wu, Jingjing
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/7] ethdev: define new ethdev API
> rx_classification_filter_ctl
> 
> Hi Jingjing,
> 
> 2014-08-27 10:13, Jingjing Wu:
> > support a new ethdev API rx_classification_filter_ctl for all
> > the configuration or queries for receive classification filters.
> > this patch supports commands the API used below:
> >   RTE_CMD_FDIR_RULE_ADD
> >   RTE_CMD_FDIR_RULE_DEL
> >   RTE_CMD_FDIR_FLUSH
> >   RTE_CMD_FDIR_INFO_GET
> 
> Could you explain why existing API (flow director + filters) is not enough?
> I'd really like to see a common API for all filtering stuff.
> 
> > -/* for 40G only */
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV4_UDP_SHIFT           31
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV4_TCP_SHIFT           33
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV4_SCTP_SHIFT          34
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV4_OTHER_SHIFT         35
> > -#define ETH_RSS_FRAG_IPV4_SHIFT               36
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV6_UDP_SHIFT           41
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV6_TCP_SHIFT           43
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV6_SCTP_SHIFT          44
> > -#define ETH_RSS_NONF_IPV6_OTHER_SHIFT         45
> > -#define ETH_RSS_FRAG_IPV6_SHIFT               46
> > -#define ETH_RSS_FCOE_OX_SHIFT                 48
> > -#define ETH_RSS_FCOE_RX_SHIFT                 49
> > -#define ETH_RSS_FCOE_OTHER_SHIFT              50
> > -#define ETH_RSS_L2_PAYLOAD_SHIFT              63
> > +/* Packet Classification Type for 40G only */
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV4_UDP              31
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV4_TCP              33
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV4_SCTP             34
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV4_OTHER            35
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_FRAG_IPV4                  36
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV6_UDP              41
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV6_TCP              43
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV6_SCTP             44
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_NONF_IPV6_OTHER            45
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_FRAG_IPV6                  46
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_FCOE_OX                    48 /* not used */
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_FCOE_RX                    49 /* not used */
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_FCOE_OTHER                 50 /* not used */
> > +#define ETH_PCTYPE_L2_PAYLOAD                 63
> 
> Why is it specific to i40e? Could we have something generic?
> Please take care at having only generic things in librte_ether.
> 
> By the way, these renamings should be in a separated patch.
> 
> --
> Thomas