2014-08-28 13:39, Wu, Jingjing: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > I'm OK to change APIs but you should remove the old one, or at least, > > implement your new API in existing drivers to allow deprecation of the > > old API. > > I think it would help if you start by doing ixgbe work and then apply it > > to i40e. > > > > Yes, it will be perfect if we can use this new API to achieve flow director > setting all types of NICs. But the concern is downward compatibility.
In this case, cleanup is more important than compatibility. > Users who is planning update DPDK version need to change their code > to adapt such changes. Yes, but we can keep deprecated function during 1 release. > That's why we choose a new API instead of modifying current APIs. And > Of course, the ideal plan is adding such XXX_ctl function in Ixgbe and > Igb to moving smoothly without removing current APIs. Yes > > I don't think flow director is a specific feature. We shouldn't have > > to care if port is i40e or ixgbe to setup flow director. > > Is it possible to have a common API and maybe an inheritance of the > > common structure with PMD specific fields? > > Yes, flow director is not a specific feature. Even ixgbe and i40 use the same > name. But the context and key have much difference. That's why I called it > specific. > > Yes, it's a good idea about an inheritance of the common structure. I think it > may support new NIC integration in future. We can do it with the new API > architecture. But the concern is still how to be compatible with old version. There is no compatibility blocker here. If we can keep deprecated functions a while, we'll do. Otherwise, just go with the new API. I prefer we concentrate on good design rather than on compatibility. Thanks -- Thomas
