Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 2:33 PM > To: Fu, Patrick <patrick...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; > maxime.coque...@redhat.com; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.w...@intel.com>; > Wang, Liang-min <liang-min.w...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Miskell, Timothy > <timothy.misk...@intel.com>; Liang, Cunming <cunming.li...@intel.com>; > arybche...@solarflare.com; Jiawei Wang <jiaw...@mellanox.com>; > or...@mellanox.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib: introduce traffic mirroring API > > > I assume you consider deprecating rte_eth_mirror_rule_set() > http://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html#a1c88c5e86f0358981443600f > 05069091 > Not exactly. The rte_eth_mirror_rule_set() is vendor-dependent API which allows admin to configure two components (traffic source and traffic destination) of the same NIC so packets can be copied from traffic source to traffic destination through hardware. The API allows vendor to implement this function via hardware-dependent offloading capability. In contrast, this RFC is proposing two high-level APIs (vendor independent) to allow admin configuring mirror traffic from device A to device B where device A and B may come from different vendors. In particular, our initial target is on software virtual devices such as virtio/vhost where there is no mirror hw support.
> Please consider reviewing this implementation in rte_flow: > https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/73279/ > For the same reason explained, this patch is also targeting at different use cases with our RFC. Thanks, Patrick
