16/10/2019 12:20, Jerin Jacob: > On Wed, 16 Oct, 2019, 3:46 PM Ferruh Yigit, <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On 10/16/2019 11:08 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Oct, 2019, 3:32 PM Ferruh Yigit, <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > > > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/15/2019 5:19 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Ferruh Yigit < > > ferruh.yi...@intel.com > > > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 10/15/2019 3:16 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > >>>>>>> @@ -36,13 +36,6 @@ VMDq = > > > >>>>>>> SR-IOV = > > > >>>>>>> DCB = > > > >>>>>>> VLAN filter = > > > >>>>>>> -Ethertype filter = > > > >>>>>>> -N-tuple filter = > > > >>>>>>> -SYN filter = > > > >>>>>>> -Tunnel filter = > > > >>>>>>> -Flexible filter = > > > >>>>>>> -Hash filter = > > > >>>>>>> -Flow director = > > > >>>>>>> Flow control = > > > >>>>>>> Flow API = > > > >>>>>>> Rate limitation = > > > >>>>>> I suggest adding these features back! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "Flow director" and other filters are features that > > device/driver > > > supports. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> And "Flow API" and "filter_ctrl" are methods used to > > implement these > > > features. > > > >>>>>> Indeed they are only different APIs to get input from > > application/user. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> It doesn't really mean much to say "Flow API" is supported? > > So what > > > is really > > > >>>>>> supported? It matters more what feature is supported. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Since we are saying old method is deprecated, we can update > > the > > > feature list of > > > >>>>>> drivers which implements filtering features using old method > > as not > > > supported. > > > >>>>>> And that is the case with this patch since old APIs are > > marked as > > > deprecated, > > > >>>>>> users can't use them to enable a filtering feature. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Indeed I am for removing the "Flow API" from feature list, > > first it > > > is not a > > > >>>>>> feature, second if it is only method to enable a filtering, > > and if > > > filtering is > > > >>>>>> enabled in a driver, what is the point of redundant "Flow > > API" listing? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I can make a quick patch if there is no objection, thanks. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As I understand it was a decision to avoid details about flow > > API support > > > >>>>> in features matrix. Mainly because matrix would be really huge > > in > > > >>>>> attempt to represent it. The question is why filters/patterns > > mentioned > > > >>>>> above are better than others and should be mentioned. > > > >>>>> I'm not against adding some details, just want to understand > > criteria. > > > >>>>> Flexible and hash are definitely not well defined. > > > >>>>> What is flow director and which features should be supported > > to say yes? > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The criteria I have is what users will be interested about a > > device/driver. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Will it be really huge to list filtering capabilities of the > > devices? I > > > believe > > > >>>> we can group them into a few groups like above. > > > >>>> Or at least keep existing one and improve it by time and +1 to > > clarify > > > them more > > > >>>> but that is something else. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> A device can have capabilities but it is not easy to find if > > that > > > capability has > > > >>>> been enabled via DPDK, this kind of feature matrix works for > > it, and all > > > >>>> features together makes it much easier than digging datasheets > > and code. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Saying that "Flow API" is enabled for a driver doesn't really > > gives any > > > >>>> information to the user if they are interested what kind of > > filtering > > > features > > > >>>> are supported by that device/driver. > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree. I think, we need to enumerate rte flow patterns and > > actions > > > >>> supported by the PMD. > > > >>> Since there was no single place such documentation, we added the > > same > > > >>> in PMD documentation > > > >>> See 39.8. RTE Flow Support at > > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/octeontx2.html > > > >>> > > > >>> And IMO, We should not add deprecated features in the features > > matrix as > > > >>> new PMDs are not planning to implement the deprecated APIs. That > > > >>> makes, matrix looks > > > >>> new PMDs do not implement a lot of features, but in reality, > > those are > > > >>> deprecated and never planning to implement if even though HW > > supports it. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> +1 to not add deprecated features to the matrix, but those > > removed ones > > > [1] are > > > >> not deprecated. Implementing them via "filter_ctrl" is > > deprecated. Below > > > >> features still can be implemented via "Flow API", that is why I > > am for adding > > > >> them back to default.ini. > > > > > > > > Got it. Instead of [1], Can we document it as in the form of > > rte_flow > > > > semantics(patterns and actions) so > > > > that for the end-user it is very clear. Reason being: > > > > # Expressing "Tunnel filter" or "N-tupe filter" or "Flexible > > filter" > > > > or "Flow director" etc is very vague in rte_flow semantics > > > > and function is not just limited with above-fixed functions > > > > # The new PMDs also can express the rte_flow aka "Flow API" > > support > > > > in the rte_flow semantics. > > > > > > rte_flow is implementation detail, as well as 'filter_ctrl', I > > believe listing > > > rte_flow semantic will be too much detail for the feature table. > > > > > > And end user may be interested in features, as if that drive/device > > support > > > "Flow Director" or not, instead of rte_flow semantic. > > > > > > But I can see feature being vague is also problem, perhaps we can > > have rte_flow > > > level details in features.rst file, will it work? > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for adding rte_flow level level details in features.rst > > > > OK, let me check this > > > > Ok
Just to confirm my thought: The name of the removed "features" came from the filter API, which is very similar to Intel datasheets. In rte_flow API, these categories may not make sense. I am OK to not refer to rte_flow but to show the real implemented features, if you find a way to express them concisely. > > > IMO, Supported packet types(ptype) also good addition in features list. > > > > "Packet type parsing" feature is already there, > > > > http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/v19.08/source/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini#L53 > > > > If you mean the list of supported types, it is possible to get list on > > runtime > > via an API, it will be hard to maintain that list in documentation. > > > > Yes. I meant the list of supported types. > Ok. I will check the feasibility. We need to be careful about the size of this matrix. We can split in several matrix if needed.
