[PATCH v1 01/21] ethdev: add flow graph API

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 8/26/2026 4:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 26/08/2026 12:20, Burakov, Anatoly:
>> On 8/26/2026 11:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 26/08/2026 10:58, Burakov, Anatoly:
>>>> On 8/25/2026 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 20/08/2026 16:00, Anatoly Burakov:
>>>>>> This commit adds a flow graph parsing API. This is a helper API intended to
>>>>>> help ethdev drivers implement rte_flow parsers, as common usages map to
>>>>>> graph traversal problem very well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Features provided by the API:
>>>>>> - Flow graph, edge, and node definitions
>>>>>> - Graph traversal logic
>>>>>> - Declarative validation against common flow item types
>>>>>> - Per-node validation and state processing callbacks
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_flow_graph.h                 | 532 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we sure about the name? Why not "parsing" instead of "graph"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it is intended to help build *protocol graphs*, not *generic
>>>> flow parsing*. I.e. only things that lend themselves to be represented
>>>> by a graph would work with this - things like conntrack wouldn't. So, I
>>>> feel like "graph" is a more accurate name for this, because this is only
>>>> for enabling the protocol graph walk, not for full flow parsing.
>>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>>>> Is it only for drivers? In this case, no need to make it a public API.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is for drivers. It is not a public API, it is not installed into
>>>> public headers. If there is anything I forgot to do to remove it from
>>>> being public, please let me know.
>>>
>>> You should not use the rte_ prefix for files which are not public.
>>> I know this convention is not well followed for historical reason,
>>> like rte_flow_driver.h should be flow_driver.h
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The fact that it didn't look like there was no convention was why I
>> picked rte_ prefix. I'll happily use a non-rte prefix for these. Maybe
>> use eth_ prefix for both flow_graph and flow_driver? Or does flow_graph
>> work fine?
> 
> I don't think adding eth prefix is needed.
> 
>> [on a separate note: should rte_vfio follow suit and be renamed? it is
>> no longer a public API following my patchset. renaming it to `vfio`
>> would probably cause conflicts with Linux headers, so maybe something
>> like vfio_driver like flow_driver?]
> 
> Yes vfio_driver looks fine.
> 
> 

Actually, on second thought, "vfio_driver" is too similar to 
"bus_driver" and "dev_driver" which kind of implies that "vfio_driver" 
is for writing vfio drivers. Maybe dev_vfio would be better?

(flow_driver sits in lib/ethdev which is a driver subsystem, but vfio 
sits in EAL which is not, so for flow_driver I think "flow_driver" is 
OK, but vfio header is in common include together with bus_driver and 
dev_driver, I think vfio_driver would be confusing)

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly