On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:22 AM Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > From: Jerin Jacob: > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:56 AM Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:57 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 03/07/2020 17:08, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:25 PM Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > > > When adding overlapping API(rte_eth_mirror_rule_set()) in > > > > > > > > the same library(ethdev). > > > > > > > > Please depreciate the old API. > > > > > > > > We should not have two separate paths for the same function > > > > > > > > in the same ethdev library. It is pain for app and driver > > > > > > > > developers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are about all the other rte_flow parallel configuration > > > > > > > APIs in > > > > ethdev: > > > > > > > promiscuous_enable; > > > > > > > promiscuous_disable; > > > > > > > allmulticast_enable; > > > > > > > allmulticast_disable; > > > > > > > mac_addr_remove; > > > > > > > mac_addr_add; > > > > > > > mac_addr_set; > > > > > > > set_mc_addr_list; > > > > > > > vlan_filter_set; > > > > > > > vlan_tpid_set; > > > > > > > vlan_strip_queue_set; > > > > > > > vlan_offload_set; > > > > > > > vlan_pvid_set; > > > > > > > udp_tunnel_port_add; > > > > > > > udp_tunnel_port_del; > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These APIs can be replaced easily by rte_flow API. > > > > > > > Do you think we need to deprecate all? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, basic stuff like below can have separate API. > > > > > > 1) promiscuous_enable; > > > > > > 2) promiscuous_disable; > > > > > > 3) allmulticast_enable; > > > > > > 4) allmulticast_disable; > > > > > > 5) mac_addr_remove; > > > > > > 6) mac_addr_add; > > > > > > 7) mac_addr_set; > > > > > > 8) set_mc_addr_list; > > > > > > > > > > "Basic" is not a precise definition :) > > > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > > > I would say port-level configuration should remain out of rte_flow > > > > > API. > > > > > > Thomas, Can you explain what is port-level? > > > Everything in rte_flow is per port... > > > > > > Also, can you give reasons for your claim? > > > > > > > +1. > > > > In addition that, I would say anything needs to configured at "per-flow" > > > > granularity use rte_flow. > > > > > > Jerin, What do you mean "per-flow" ? > > > > In Terms of NIC HW features, Typical HW will have > > a) Basic "port" level configuration like > > - enable/disable promiscuous > > What is "port level", everything in rte_flow is also per port... > > > b) Advance HW's will have CAM based flow filtering. IMO, CAM related stuff > > should go to rte_flow. > > It is HW internal, I don't think all HWs use the same logic here. > Since rte_flow is generic for all filtering methods, It is good candidate API > for all HWs. > > > This is to enable, The very basic PMD(without advanced features) should > > work with port level basic APIs(i.e without rte_flow) > > What is "basic"? Do you mean simple match and simple action? > As I said, Also rte_flow is port level API - so "port level" is not good term > here. > > As you said " When adding overlapping API(rte_eth_mirror_rule_set()) in the > same library(ethdev). Please depreciate the old API." > > Different APIs to do the same thing is not good, especially in packet > filtering: > What should we do if we have conflicts? > For example: legacy filtering APIs say to receive packet A and rte_flow says > to drop it. > > Don't you think it complicates more the user API understanding, also the PMD > implementations? > > > > I have seen promiscuous, mac address handling is part of basic NIC HW(i.e > > NICs without advanced CAM filters). > > That's my reasoning for the split. > > As I said, the nic HW specific implementation should not affect the API. > I don't think we need to split API and to complicate the user because of it. > > IMO, It is better to have one generic API for packet filtering: > It is clearer, simpler, generic and classic. > The user and PMD need to understand only one filtering API and that’s it (no > need to combine between multiple filtering APIs). > > I know this is big change but we can do it in modular way. > It reminds me the big change that was done in Rx\Tx offload configurations: > So, when offload became more popular we modularly forced users to replace the > offload API. > Also here, flow filtering becomes popular so maybe this is the > time(20.08-20.11) to force changes in the old APIs. > > > > Everything in traffic filtering\actions is per flow, for example: > > > Promiscuous: flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / end actions queue > > > index 0 / end > > > > IMO, it is not an accurate representation of promiscuous enable. It needs to > > send the traffic to all queues and patterns is not just eth. > > Yes, if legacy RSS is configured we need to replace the above queue action by > rss action as I wrote before.(did you read it just below?) > > So, we can add legacy RSS APIs to the list above...
I meant, If promiscuous enable, then what would be the pattern, Should be limit just to "eth". I leave up to ethdev maintainer to decide. Is promiscuous part of rte_flow API or not? I dnt have a very strong objection. For me, VLAN(rte_vlan_*) and MIRROR(rte_eth_mirror_rule_set()) are most worrisome as each PMD need to duplicate that work as both are CAM based API.
