On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:03 AM Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 6:34 PM
> > <samik.gu...@broadcom.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API
> >
> > On 9/16/20 10:20 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:52 AM Andrey Vesnovaty <andr...@nvidia.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Ajit
> > >>
> > >> For shared action configuration I have following suggestion:
> > >>
> > >> struct rte_flow_shared_action_conf {
> > >> uint32_t no_ingress: 1;
> > >> uint32_t no_egress: 1;
> > >> };
> > >> /*...*/
> > >> rte_flow_shared_action_create(..., const struct
> > rte_flow_shared_action_conf *conf, ...);
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > > Andrey, I think this is good.
> > > Application can specify the direction and PMD can decide whether if
> > > it needs to honor it or ignore it.
> > > Please send the updated version of the patch.
> >
> > Personally I dislike negative flags, offloads, fields etc.
> > Don't we have a policy to avoid it. At least we have it for
> > offloads. I see no string reasons here to use negative
> > instead of positive here.
>
> Agree I think it is better to use positive values and the same names as the
> attribute in the flow.
Has a new version of the patch been submitted? Thanks
>
