> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 6:56 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>;
> Aman Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
> <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnow...@nvidia.com>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; NBU-
> Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>; Andrew
> Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: rename action modify field data structure
>
> On 1/31/2024 2:57 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 1:19 AM
> >> To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>;
> >> Aman Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
> >> <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnow...@nvidia.com>;
> >> Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad
> >> <ma...@nvidia.com>; NBU- Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)
> >> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Andrew Rybchenko
> >> <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: rename action modify field data
> >> structure
> >>
> >> On 1/15/2024 9:13 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
> >>> Current rte_flow_action_modify_data struct describes the pkt field
> >>> perfectly and is used only in action.
> >>>
> >>> It is planned to be used for item as well. This commit renames it to
> >>> "rte_flow_field_data" making it compatible to be used by item.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ack to rename struct to use in pattern.
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> >>> Acked-by: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>
> >>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
> >>> ---
> >>> app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 2 +-
> >>> doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 2 +-
> >>> doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_03.rst | 1 +
> >>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 4 ++--
> >>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.h | 6 +++---
> >>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c | 10 +++++-----
> >>> lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 8 ++++----
> >>> 7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>> b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c index ce71818705..3725e955c7 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>> @@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ enum index {
> >>> #define ITEM_RAW_SIZE \
> >>> (sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_raw) + ITEM_RAW_PATTERN_SIZE)
> >>>
> >>> -/** Maximum size for external pattern in struct
> >>> rte_flow_action_modify_data. */
> >>> +/** Maximum size for external pattern in struct rte_flow_field_data.
> >>> +*/
> >>> #define ACTION_MODIFY_PATTERN_SIZE 32
> >>>
> >>
> >> What do you think to update 'ACTION_MODIFY_PATTERN_SIZE' here too,
> >> instead of next patch?
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h index
> >>> affdc8121b..40f6dcaacd 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> >>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> >>> @@ -3910,9 +3910,9 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id {
> >>> * @warning
> >>> * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
> >>> *
> >>> - * Field description for MODIFY_FIELD action.
> >>> + * Field description for packet field.
> >>>
> >>
> >> New note is not very helpful, how can we make it more useful?
> >>
> >> Does it make sense to keep 'MODIFY_FIELD' and add 'COMPARE ITEM' in
> >> next patch, to clarify the intended usage for the struct, otherwise it is
> >> too
> generic.
> >
> > OK, sorry, the purpose is to make it generic. So next time if other ITEM or
> ACTION need that field, it can be used directly.
> > Otherwise, it feels like it can only be used by 'MODIFY_FIELD' and
> 'COMPARE_ITEM', what do you think?
> >
>
> I don't have an intention to limit its usage, but to clarify usage for
> whoever checks
> the document.
>
> "Field description for packet field." doesn't say what exactly it is and cause
> confusion.
>
> Perhaps wording can be changed to say two possible usages are for
> 'MODIFY_FIELD' and 'COMPARE_ITEM'?
Sounds good, OK, I will update.
BTW, I saw the patch apply failed, seems it is due to Raslan's branch has some
extra features than your branch.
So I just want to know is it OK? Or should I still base on your branch? When
will the branches be synced.
