06/04/2021 13:02, Bing Zhao: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 06/04/2021 11:07, Bing Zhao: > > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > > > > On 3/17/21 11:28 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 17/03/2021 08:59, Bing Zhao: > > > > >> The new functions rte_flow_action_ctx* that were added will > > > > replace > > > > >> the curret shared functions rte_flow_shared_action_*. > > > > >> - rte_flow_shared_action_create > > > > >> - rte_flow_shared_action_destroy > > > > >> - rte_flow_shared_action_update > > > > >> - rte_flow_shared_action_query > > > > >> + rte_flow_action_ctx_create > > > > >> + rte_flow_action_ctx_destroy > > > > >> + rte_flow_action_ctx_update > > > > >> + rte_flow_action_ctx_query > > > > >> > > > > >> When creating a action context, it could be shared among > > > > different > > > > >> flows or different ports. Or it could also be used by a > > single > > > > flow. > > > > >> The name "shared" is improper in a sense. > > > > > > > > > > Is it the only reason for the change? > > > > > I better understand "shared" even if it is sometimes not > > shared. > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > In another email, I explained the change a bit more. Please check > > and give comments, thank you all. > > > > Any link to this email from inbox.dpdk.org? > > The link is here. > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/mn2pr12mb29097fe55676d5d389d86c46d0...@mn2pr12mb2909.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/ > > > > > Please explain here the naming reason. > > > > The naming reasons are listed below: > 1. The "shared_action*" is incorrect or improper naming of the interface. > 2. The "_update" interface needs to be changed to support the partial > updating capability. > 3. Since we need to modify the update interface, this is a chance to change > the improper *experimental* interfaces naming to make them more proper.
It does not explain why "action_ctx" is a better name than "shared_action".
