[dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API
helin.zhang at intel.com
Tue Nov 8 02:31:05 CET 2016
Any update on the v1 APIs? We are struggling on that, as we need that for our development.
May I bring another idea to remove the blocking?
Can we send out the APIs with PMD changes based on our understaning of the RFC we discussed recenlty on community? Then you can just update any modification on top of it, or ask the submittors to change with your review comments?
Any comments on this idea? If not, then we may go this way. I guess this might be the most efficient way. Thank you very much!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:13 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon; Lu, Wenzhuo
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification
> Hi Helin,
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:19:18AM +0000, Zhang, Helin wrote:
> > Hi Adrien
> > Just a double check, do you have any update on the v1 patch set, as now it
> is the end of October?
> > We are extremly eager to see the v1 patch set for development.
> > I don't think we need full validation on the v1 patch set for API. It should be
> together with PMD and example application.
> > If we can see the v1 API patch set earlier, we can help to validate it with
> our code changes. That's should be more efficient and helpful.
> > Any comments on my personal understanding?
> > Thank you very much for the hard work and kind helps!
> I intend to send it shortly, likely this week. For the record, a large part of this
> task was also dedicated to implement it on the client side (I've just read Wei's
> RFC for a client-side application to which I will reply separately), in order to
> validate it from a usability standpoint that led me to make a few necessary
> adjustments to the API.
> My next submission will include both the updated API with several changes
> discussed on this ML and testpmd code (not a separate application) that uses
> it. Just hang on a bit longer!
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien
> > > Mazarguil
> > > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:11 AM
> > > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow
> > > director/filtering/classification API
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:50:44PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to many for the positive and constructive feedback I've
> > > > received so far. Here is the updated specification (v0.7) at last.
> > > >
> > > > I've attempted to address as many comments as possible but could
> > > > not process them all just yet. A new section "Future evolutions"
> > > > has been added for the remaining topics.
> > > >
> > > > This series adds rte_flow.h to the DPDK tree. Next time I will
> > > > attempt to convert the specification as a documentation commit
> > > > part of the patchset and actually implement API functions.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > A quick update, we initially targeted 16.11 as the DPDK release this
> > > API would be available for, turns out this goal was somewhat too
> > > optimistic as September is ending and we are about to overshoot the
> > > deadline for integration (basically everything took longer than expected,
> big surprise).
> > >
> > > So instead of rushing things now to include a botched API in 16.11
> > > with no PMD support, we simply modified the target, now set to
> > > 17.02. On the plus side this should leave developers more time to
> > > refine and test the API before applications and PMDs start to use it.
> > >
> > > I intend to send the patchset for the first non-draft version
> > > mid-October worst case (ASAP in fact). I still haven't replied to
> > > several comments but did take them into account, thanks for your
> > >
> > > --
> > > Adrien Mazarguil
> > > 6WIND
> Adrien Mazarguil
More information about the dev