On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-01-20 02:14, Lu, Wenzhuo: > > Hi Adrien, Thomas, Yong, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien Mazarguil > > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:46 AM > > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > > Cc: Liu, Yong; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:06:34AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2017-01-19 13:34, Yong Liu: > > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for 17.05: structure > > > > > +``rte_eth_tunnel_filter_conf`` > > > > > + will be extended with a new member ``vf_id`` in order to enable > > > > > +cloud filter > > > > > + on VF device. > > > > > > > > I think we should stop rely on this API, and migrate to rte_flow > > > > instead. > > > > Adrien any thought? > > > > > > I'm all for using rte_flow in any case. I've already documented an > > > approach to > > > convert TUNNEL filter rules to rte_flow rules [1], although it may be > > > incomplete due to my limited experience with this filter type. We already > > > know several tunnel item types must be added (currently only VXLAN is > > > defined). > > > > > > I understand ixgbe/i40e currently map rte_flow on top of the legacy > > > framework, therefore extending this structure might still be needed in the > > > meantime. Not sure we should prevent this change as long as such rules > > > can be > > > configured through rte_flow as well. > > > > > > [1] > > > http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#tunnel-to-eth-ipv4- > > > ipv6-vxlan-or-other-queue > > The problem is we haven't finished transferring all the functions from the > > regular filters to the generic filters. > > For example, igb, fm10k and enic haven't support generic filters yet. Ixgbe > > and i40e have supported the basic functions, but some advance features are > > not transferred to generic filters yet. > > Seems it's not the time to remove the regular filters. Yong, I suggest to > > support both generic filter and regular filter in parallel. > > So, we need to announce ABI change for the regular filter, until someday we > > remove the regular filter API. > > I disagree. > There is a new API framework (rte_flow) and we must focus on this transition. > It means we must stop any work on the legacy API.
I agree with Thomas here.
