[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern
Zhang, Qi Z
qi.z.zhang at intel.com
Thu Jun 1 03:44:56 CEST 2017
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:52 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> >Hi Zhang,
> >You should cram "flow API" somewhere in the title of such commits.
> >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:28:54PM -0400, Qi Zhang wrote:
> >> Add new meta pattern item RTE_FLOW_TYPE_ITEM_ROUGHLY.
> >> This is for device that support no-perfect match option.
> >> Usually a no-perfect match is fast but the cost is accuracy.
> >> i.e. Signature Match only match pattern's hash value, but it is
> >> possible two different patterns have the same hash value.
> >> Matching accuracy level can be configure by subfield threshold.
> >> Driver can divide the range of threshold and map to different
> >> accuracy levels that device support.
> >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
> >While I really like the "roughly" pattern item name since it perfectly
> >describes its intended purpose in my opinion, perhaps some may not find
> >this name appropriate. I would like to hear other people's opinion on
> >the matter and not be the only one to ack this patch.
> "no-perfect" has been used a few times in the documentation. How about
> "IMPERFECT" as item name?
"Imperfect" looks better for me,
If no other objection, I will use this in V2.
> Gaëtan Rivet
More information about the dev