> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/2] ethdev: port flags for pre-configuration flow hints
>
> Summary must not be a statement. May be:
> ethdev: add strict queue to pre-configuration flow hints
>
> On 6/1/22 10:39, Xiaoyu Min wrote:
> > The data-path focused flow rule management can manage flow rules in more
> > optimized way than traditional one by using hints provided by
> > application in initialization phase.
> >
> > In addition to the current hints we have in port attr, more hints could
> > be provided by application about its behaviour.
> >
> > One example is how the application do with the same flow rule ?
> > A. create/destroy flow on same queue but query flow on different queue
> > or queue-less way (i.e, counter query)
> > B. All flow operations will be exactly on the same queue, by which PMD
> > could be in more optimized way then A because resource could be
> > isolated and access based on queue, without lock, for example.
> >
> > This patch add flag about above situation and could be extended to cover
> > more situations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyu Min <jack...@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > index d8827dd184..38439fcd1d 100644
> > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > @@ -4948,6 +4948,12 @@ rte_flow_info_get(uint16_t port_id,
> > struct rte_flow_queue_info *queue_info,
> > struct rte_flow_error *error);
> >
> > +/**
> > + * Indicate all operations for a given flow rule will _strictly_ happen
> > + * on the same queue (create/destroy/query/update).
> > + */
> > +#define RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_STRICT_QUEUE RTE_BIT32(0)
> > +
> > /**
> > * @warning
> > * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice.
> > @@ -4972,6 +4978,11 @@ struct rte_flow_port_attr {
> > * @see RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_METER
> > */
> > uint32_t nb_meters;
> > + /**
> > + * Port flags.
> > + * @see RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_STRICT_QUEUE
>
> I'm not sure that it is a good idea to list flags here.
> If so, it will be required to add all future flags here.
> So, may be just "Port flags (RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_*)"
>
+1
> > + */
> > + uint32_t flags;
> > };
> >
> > /**
