[PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: rename action modify field data structure

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 2/1/2024 11:09 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 6:56 PM
>> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>;
>> Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
>> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski at nvidia.com>; Slava
>> Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <matan at nvidia.com>; NBU-
>> Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <thomas at monjalon.net>; Andrew
>> Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: rename action modify field data structure
>>
>> On 1/31/2024 2:57 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 1:19 AM
>>>> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>;
>>>> Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
>>>> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski at nvidia.com>;
>>>> Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad
>>>> <matan at nvidia.com>; NBU- Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)
>>>> <thomas at monjalon.net>; Andrew Rybchenko
>>>> <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>>>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: rename action modify field data
>>>> structure
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2024 9:13 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
>>>>> Current rte_flow_action_modify_data struct describes the pkt field
>>>>> perfectly and is used only in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is planned to be used for item as well. This commit renames it to
>>>>> "rte_flow_field_data" making it compatible to be used by item.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ack to rename struct to use in pattern.
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c            |  2 +-
>>>>>  doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst     |  2 +-
>>>>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_03.rst |  1 +
>>>>>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c           |  4 ++--
>>>>>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.h           |  6 +++---
>>>>>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c        | 10 +++++-----
>>>>>  lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h                  |  8 ++++----
>>>>>  7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
>>>>> b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c index ce71818705..3725e955c7 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
>>>>> @@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ enum index {
>>>>>  #define ITEM_RAW_SIZE \
>>>>>  	(sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_raw) + ITEM_RAW_PATTERN_SIZE)
>>>>>
>>>>> -/** Maximum size for external pattern in struct
>>>>> rte_flow_action_modify_data. */
>>>>> +/** Maximum size for external pattern in struct rte_flow_field_data.
>>>>> +*/
>>>>>  #define ACTION_MODIFY_PATTERN_SIZE 32
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you think to update 'ACTION_MODIFY_PATTERN_SIZE' here too,
>>>> instead of next patch?
>>>
>>> Agree.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h index
>>>>> affdc8121b..40f6dcaacd 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> @@ -3910,9 +3910,9 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id {
>>>>>   * @warning
>>>>>   * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
>>>>>   *
>>>>> - * Field description for MODIFY_FIELD action.
>>>>> + * Field description for packet field.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> New note is not very helpful, how can we make it more useful?
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to keep 'MODIFY_FIELD' and add 'COMPARE ITEM' in
>>>> next patch, to clarify the intended usage for the struct, otherwise it is too
>> generic.
>>>
>>> OK, sorry, the purpose is to make it generic. So next time if other ITEM or
>> ACTION need that field, it can be used directly.
>>> Otherwise, it feels like it can only be used by 'MODIFY_FIELD' and
>> 'COMPARE_ITEM', what do you think?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have an intention to limit its usage, but to clarify usage for whoever checks
>> the document.
>>
>> "Field description for packet field." doesn't say what exactly it is and cause
>> confusion.
>>
>> Perhaps wording can be changed to say two possible usages are for
>> 'MODIFY_FIELD' and 'COMPARE_ITEM'?
> 
> Sounds good, OK, I will update.
> 
> BTW, I saw the patch apply failed, seems it is due to Raslan's branch has some extra features than your branch.
> So I just want to know is it OK? Or should I still base on your branch? When will the branches be synced.
> 

Thanks.

Can you please rebase next version on next-net, this way we can benefit
from CI checks?