Hi Andrey, On Thursday, December 12/10/15, 2015 at 07:46:42 -0800, Chilikin, Andrey wrote: > Hi Rahul, > > If ABI for fdir is going to be changed should we then take more general > approach to accommodate other NICs as well? For example, for > "rte_eth_ipv4_flow" you have "tos" and "proto" fields added, but "ttl" was > left out of scope. I believe that "rte_eth_udpv6_flow" should be compatible > with new IPv4 structure, so "flow label", "tc", "next header" and "hop limit" > to be added as well as other NICs might have support for fdir rules for all > these fields. >
I agree. I'll wait for some more review comments if there are any and then post a v2 RFC series with above changes. Thanks, Rahul
