Wednesday, October 2, 2019 11:32 AM, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran:
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1] regexdev: introduce regexdev
> subsystem
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 11:23 AM
> > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>; 'dev@dpdk.org' <dev@dpdk.org>
> > Cc: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; 'Hemant
> > Agrawal' <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Opher Reviv
> <op...@mellanox.com>;
> > Alex Rosenbaum <al...@mellanox.com>; Dovrat Zifroni
> > <dov...@marvell.com>; Prasun Kapoor <pkap...@marvell.com>; 'Nipun
> > Gupta' <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>; 'Wang, Xiang W'
> > <xiang.w.w...@intel.com>; 'Richardson, Bruce'
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; 'yang.a.h...@intel.com'
> > <yang.a.h...@intel.com>; 'harry.ch...@intel.com'
> > <harry.ch...@intel.com>; 'gu.ji...@zte.com.cn' <gu.ji...@zte.com.cn>;
> 'shanjia...@chinatelecom.cn'
> > <shanjia...@chinatelecom.cn>; 'zhangy....@chinatelecom.cn'
> > <zhangy....@chinatelecom.cn>; 'lixin...@huachentel.com'
> > <lixin...@huachentel.com>; 'wush...@inspur.com'
> <wush...@inspur.com>;
> > 'yuying...@yxlink.com' <yuying...@yxlink.com>;
> > 'fanchengg...@sunyainfo.com' <fanchengg...@sunyainfo.com>;
> > 'davidf...@tencent.com' <davidf...@tencent.com>;
> > 'liuzho...@chinaunicom.cn' <liuzho...@chinaunicom.cn>;
> > 'zhaoyon...@huawei.com' <zhaoyon...@huawei.com>; 'o...@yunify.com'
> > <o...@yunify.com>; 'j...@netgate.com' <j...@netgate.com>;
> > 'hongjun...@intel.com' <hongjun...@intel.com>; 'j.bromhead@titan-
> ic.com'
> > <j.bromh...@titan-ic.com>; 'd...@ntop.org' <d...@ntop.org>;
> > 'f...@napatech.com' <f...@napatech.com>; 'arthur...@lionic.com'
> > <arthur...@lionic.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1] regexdev: introduce regexdev
> > subsystem
> >
> > > > > I think the function name is not too informative. If this
> > > > > function meant to compile the rule then it should be explicit on
> > > > > the function
> > > name.
> > > >
> > > > It is meant to be compile the rules and then update the rule database.
> > > >
> > > > I think, we can have either 1 or 2. Let me know your preference or
> > > > If you have any name suggestion. I will change it accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > 1. rte_regex_rule_db_compile()
> > > > 2. rte_regex_rule_db_compile_update()
> > >
> > >
> > > @Shahaf Shuler, Thoughts?
> >
> > IMO we should have two separate functions - one to only compile. One
> > to only update.
> >
> > So I would prefer #1, with addition (if not already present) of API to
> > update rules.
>
>
> OK. Will change it in next version.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +struct rte_regex_ops {
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /* W4 */
> > > > > > + RTE_STD_C11
> > > > > > + union {
> > > > > > + uint64_t user_id;
> > > > > > + /**< Application specific opaque value. An
> application
> > may
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > + * this field to hold application specific value to
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > + * between dequeue and enqueue operation.
> > > > > > + * Implementation should not modify this field.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + void *user_ptr;
> > > > > > + /**< Pointer representation of *user_id* */
> > > > > > + };
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we target the regex subsystem for both regex and DPI I
> > > > > think it will be good to add another uint64_t field called
> connection_id.
> > > > > Device that support DPI can refer to it as another match able
> > > > > field when looking up for matches on the given buffer.
> > > > >
> > > > > This field is different from the user_id, as it is not opaque for the
> device.
> > > >
> > > > Is this driver specific storage place where application should not touch
> it?
> > > >
> > > > If not, Could you share the data flow of this field? Ie. Who "write"
> > > > this Field and who "read" this field.
> >
> > Application writes to the field. Device reads from this fields.
> > Unlike the user_ptr which is complete opaque to the device,
> > connection_id field will have some meaning (e.g. DPI rules can apply on it).
>
> Will you be connecting the value to rte_flow etc to get the complete data
> flow.
> I understand applications writes to this field, But I am not sure what values
> Needs to be written and how it will be connected in overall scheme of things.
> I am not sure even what to write doxgygen comment for this field.
>
> Can we add this field once we have the complete data flow?. Since it is
> Experimental we can always add new field.
Yes. We can revisit it later, so long we agree that such field can be added.
>
