Hi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:07 AM
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 7:22 AM Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 5:52 PM
> > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com>; Ori Kam
> > > <or...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)
> > > <tho...@monjalon.net>; david.march...@redhat.com; Richardson,
> Bruce
> > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; jer...@marvell.com;
> ferruh.yi...@amd.com;
> > > Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin
> > > <helin.zh...@intel.com>; techbo...@dpdk.org; dev@dpdk.org; Ivan
> Malov
> > > <ivan.ma...@arknetworks.am>
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC] lib/ethdev: introduce table driven APIs
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 5:53 AM Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 9:20 AM
> > > > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Dumitrescu, Cristian
> > > > > <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> > > > > (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>; david.march...@redhat.com;
> > > > > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; jer...@marvell.com;
> > > > > ferruh.yi...@amd.com; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>;
> > > > > Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com>; techbo...@dpdk.org;
> > > > > dev@dpdk.org; Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@arknetworks.am>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [RFC] lib/ethdev: introduce table driven APIs
> > > > >
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > However, the question arises regarding how to handle vendor-specific
> data,
> > > which also can be part of the table / action key and could potentially be
> > > mapped to either rte_flow_item_tag or rte_flow_item_metadata. I'm
> > > uncertain about how the P4-DPDK compiler can manage this aspect.
> Perhaps
> > > this particular aspect should be addressed by each vendor's individual
> > > backend compiler, while we focus on defining the specifications for the
> > > output and providing the common components for parser analysis.
> > >
> > > If we take the compiler path, Why we need vendor specific data?
> >
> > Let's consider the following scenario:
> >
> > Assume that a hardware device contains metadata that can be passed
> between different stages of a pipeline.
> >
> > For instance, in stage A, a rule is matched, and the metadata is set. In
> > stage
> B, this metadata is used as a match key.
> >
> > To design the API calls for the above situation using rte_flow, my
> understanding is that we need to map a rte_flow_item_tag or
> rte_flow_item_metadata to the corresponding metadata portion (including
> offset and size).
> > This way, the driver can understand how to configure the hardware
> accordingly.
> >
> > In P4, we define data structures to abstract the metadata, and the vender
> specific-backend compiler determines the arrangement of the metadata
> space.
> >
> > However, in our case, how does the proposed compiler establish the
> mapping from the P4 metadata key to rte_flow without support from the
> backend compiler?
>
> Yes. We need to change the backend compiler to understand the rte_flow
> mapping to p4 to avoid any translation cost.
+1
I think the idea is that the complier will convert to rte_flow and supply some
mapping file so when application uses some name it will be translated to the
correct
preconfigured rte_flow action
