[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: remove flow API from the feature list
Jerin Jacob
jerinjacobk at gmail.com
Fri Apr 10 11:04:48 CEST 2020
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:26 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 10/04/2020 10:44, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 10/25/2019 2:39 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:56 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 25/10/2019 14:51, Ferruh Yigit:
> > >>> "Flow API" is a method/API to implement various filtering features, on
> > >>> its own it doesn't give much context on what features are provided. And
> > >>> it is not really a feature, so doesn't fit into feature table.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also since other filtering related APIs, 'filter_ctrl', has been
> > >>> deprecated, flow API is the only supported way in the DPDK to implement
> > >>> filtering options, if related filter options announced by PMDs, listing
> > >>> "Flow API" as implemented is redundant information.
> > >>
> > >> I fully agree with this explanation.
> > >> rte_flow is the only supported API for flow offloads.
> > >> That's why we must remove the legacy API.
> > >>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini
> > >>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini
> > >>> -Flow API =
> > >>
> > >> Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > >
> > > # Need to remove "Flow API" from doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > # Need to remove refference of "Flow API" from "doc/guides/nics/*" as well.
> >
> > "Flow API" is the implementation of the filtering, it may exist in the nic
> > documentation, only it is not a feature on itself. I will scan the docs for usage.
> >
> > >
> > > Not specific to this patch,
> > > Probably we need to add a new matrix to enumerate PATTERN and ACTIONS
> > > supported by each PMD as a rte_flow feature matrix.
> > > That some else can take it up if everyone agrees the semantics.
> > >
> >
> > +1, there needs a way to figure out which filtering is supported by a
> > device/driver. It is not documented and it is very hard to got it from the code.
> >
> > Not sure if a new matrix is the good way to go, but I agree we need some way to
> > clarify it.
>
> I think we should split the matrix.
> Adding a new matrix for flow offloads looks the way to go.
> I suggest 3 matrices:
> - port-level features
> - queue-level features
> - flow-level features
Not sure what will be the details in "flow-level features".
IMO, We need to have a separate matrix for subdomain features for
rte_flow, rte_tm, rte_mtr, etc which part of ethdev.
For instance, rte_flow features can be translated into a matrix of
supported PATTERN and ACTIONS.
>
>
More information about the dev
mailing list