> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:21 PM > To: Wu, Jingjing > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/7] ethdev: define new ethdev API > rx_classification_filter_ctl > > 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. >
OK, now I have a rough understanding about your opinion, I guess there will be lots of rework need to be done. I will try. Thanks for your explanation. > Thanks > -- > Thomas Thanks Jingjing
