On 3/9/2017 3:24 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > Hi Ferruh: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Yigit, Ferruh >> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:51 PM >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; >> Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop >> >> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote: >>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for >>> specific VF. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 49 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++ >> >> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in >> *version.map file >> >>> 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+) >>> >> >> <...> >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h >>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h >>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h >>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port, int >>> rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port, >>> uint16_t vf_id); >>> >>> +/** >>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop >>> + * >>> + * @param port >>> + * The port identifier of the Ethernet device. >>> + * @param vf_id >>> + * VF on witch to enable/disable >>> + * @param on >>> + * Enable or Disable >>> + * @retura >> >> @return >> >>> + * - (0) if successful. >>> + * -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid >>> + * -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter. >>> + */ >>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port, >>> + uint16_t vf_id, >>> + uint8_t on); >> >> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following syntax in >> API: >> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes: > I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right?
Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining one. > See below > rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof; > rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter; > rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert; > rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq; > rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag; > so what's wrong with this? This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree. Easier to see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x, ns_del_x will spread to different locations. This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with all APIs in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than action based grouping. And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is agreed on, I am OK. >> >> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be removed? >> >>> + >>> #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */ >>> >
