08/11/2022 10:35, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 11/8/22 12:19, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 06/11/2022 11:02, Andrew Rybchenko: > >> On 10/4/22 11:31, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > >>> On 9/28/22 12:24, Rongwei Liu wrote: > >>>> The transfer domain rule is able to match traffic wire/vf > >>>> origin and it means two directions' underlayer resource. > >>>> > >>>> In customer deployments, they usually match only one direction > >>>> traffic in single flow table: either from wire or from vf. > > > > Customer deployment is not an argument. > > > >>>> Introduce one new member transfer_mode into rte_flow_template_table_attr > >>>> to indicate the flow table direction property: from wire, from vf > >>>> or bi-direction(default). > > > > The origin is not a direction. > > We should update this sentence. > > > >>>> It helps to save underlayer memory also on insertion rate, and this > >>>> new field doesn't expose any matching criteira. > > > > Should be reworded. > > > >>>> By default, the transfer domain is to match bi-direction traffic, and > >>>> no behavior changed. > > > > This sentence is confusing, it should be removed. > > > >>>> 1. Match wire origin only > >>>> flow template_table 0 create group 0 priority 0 transfer > >>>> wire_orig... > >>>> 2. Match vf origin only > >>>> flow template_table 0 create group 0 priority 0 transfer vf_orig... > > > > This testpmd example needs to be introduced with a sentence. > > > >>> Since wire_orig and vf_orig are just optional hints and not > >>> all PMDs are obliged to handle it, it does not impose any > >>> matching criteria. > > > > Yes > > > >>> So, example above are misleading and you > >>> need to add pattern items to highlight that corresponding rules > >>> are really wire_orig or vf_orig. > > > > This is template table creation, so I don't think there is more to add. > > What do you have in mind? > > > > Since origin is just a hint which does not impose any matching > criteria it must be highlighted in example that corresponding > rules must have some pattern items defining corresponding > origin.
Yes we could talk about corresponding rules in the commit message. What do you think of the explanations in the doc? > >> I'm sorry, but I still don't see how it is addressed in v4. > > > > I think the documentation in v4 is pretty clear. > > Do you see something in the doc which is confusing? > > The commit message needs rewording though.
