Hi Stephen,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:24 AM
> To: Andrey Vesnovaty <andrey.vesnov...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit
> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>;
> Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Andrey Vesnovaty
> <andr...@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/1] add flow shared action API
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:32:57 +0300
> Andrey Vesnovaty <andrey.vesnov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +
> > +void *
> > +rte_flow_shared_action_create(uint16_t port_id,
> > + const struct rte_flow_action *action,
> > + struct rte_flow_error *error)
> > +{
>
> NAK
>
> API's that return void * (opaque pointer) are dangerous and should
> not be added to DPDK.
>
> To do data hiding. Define a structure but don't expose the internals
> of what that structure are.
I agree with you it is better not to use void *
So I suggest to use new struct rte_action_ctx or something like this. That
will be implemented differently for each driver just like rte_flow.
What do you think?
Best,
Ori
