On 2/1/2024 11:09 AM, Suanming Mou wrote:
>
>
>> -----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.
>
Thanks.
Can you please rebase next version on next-net, this way we can benefit
from CI checks?
