On 2/2/23 13:24, Gregory Etelson wrote:
On 2/1/23 18:16, Gregory Etelson wrote:
+ ops = rte_flow_ops_get(port_id, error);
+ if (!ops || !ops->action_handle_query_update)
+ return -ENOTSUP;
May be it makes sense to use single-operation callbacks if
another operation input is NULL. I guess it could be
convenient in some cases. Just an idea.
There is a plan to deprecate indirect query and update functions
and replace them with a single query_update.
So, will you add corresponding code? Just want to clarify.
+/**
+ * @warning
+ * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice.
+ *
+ * Query and update operational mode.
+ *
+ * RTE_FLOW_QU_QUERY_FIRST
+ * Force port to query action before update.
+ * RTE_FLOW_QU_UPDATE_FIRST
+ * Force port to update action before query.
I'm sorry, but I strongly dislike enum members duplication
here. I don't understand why we need to duplicate it and why
we can't document it in a right way below.
I don't understand where the duplication is.
Query and update operations are atomic for application,
but in hardware these are 2 separate operations that reference hardware object.
The operations execution order can have different results on object state.
When application asks both actions it must explicitly specify execution order
for hardware.
No-no, simpler. Just remove RTE_FLOW_QU_QUERY_FIRST and
RTE_FLOW_QU_UPDATE_FIRST above and update comments below
to use comments from above. That's it.
+ *
+ * @see rte_flow_action_handle_query_update()
+ * @see rte_flow_async_action_handle_query_update()
+ */
+enum rte_flow_query_update_mode {
+ RTE_FLOW_QU_QUERY_FIRST, /**< Query before update. */
+ RTE_FLOW_QU_UPDATE_FIRST, /**< Query after update. */
+};
