Hi Ajit, Andrew & Ori.
PSB 😉
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajit Khaparde <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:25 PM
> To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>; Andrey Vesnovaty
> <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; dpdk-dev <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jerin Jacob
> <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]>; Stephen
> Hemminger <[email protected]>; Bruce Richardson
> <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Viacheslav
> Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ray
> Kinsella <[email protected]>; Neil Horman <[email protected]>; Thomas
> Monjalon <[email protected]>; Samik Gupta
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:03 AM Ori Kam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 6:34 PM
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > 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
> <[email protected]>
> > > 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.
@Ajit Khaparde great to know.
> > > > 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.
> > >
I'm on it. See my answer to your last email. Thanks.
> > > 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.
@Andrew Rybchenko & @Ori Kam Got your remark regarding "negative flags".
Will replace with:
struct rte_flow_shared_action_conf {
uint32_t ingress:1; /**< Action valid for rules applied to ingress
traffic. */
uint32_t egress:1; /**< Action valid for rules applied to egress
traffic. */
};
> >
> > 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
>
Thanks lot for your comments & remarks.
Hopefully new version of the patch will be published next week.
The new patch about to have testpmd for shared action to demonstrate usage.
> >
