2014-08-28 11:02, Liu, Jijiang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > 2014-08-28 00:55, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > I wonder if we could use a common function to set all kind of filters?
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts are welcome.
> > >
> > > The rte_eth_dev_tunnel_filter_set() is a common filter function for
> > > tunneling packet, which can set all kind of filters.
> >
> > I understand that. But my question was: could we have common functions for
> > tunnel filters and (existing) generic filters?
>
> Tunneling packet is encapsulated format, in order to extend another
> tunneling type support and distinguish between tunneling and non-tunneling
> packet, we had better provide independent common filter API.
> The existing generic filter function is related to normal L2 packet
> filter(non-tunneling packet). If there are two kind of filter APIs, one is
> for normal L2 packet, other is for tunneling packet, which will make user
> more clear when and how to use them.
So I ask wether it is possible to merge 2 functions and you answer they are
different functions. I know they are different.
I don't see why you can merge all different tunnels filtering in one function
and not merge them with other L2 filters type?
Should we wait that someone suggest a new API for HTTP filtering (for a new
shiny NIC) to think about how all filters could be configured through a common
API?
We already have flow director, syn filter, ethertype filter, 2-tuple filter,
5-tuple filter, flex filter and you want to add tunnel filter.
Last time, filters was called "generic filter" and I asked to think about how
it was generic:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002859.html
As I suspected, same story restart.
I want these new i40e features as much as you. But it's not responsible to
let API becoming a mess like that.
All these filters must be reworked (including flow director).
--
Thomas
