> -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:30 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 3/9/2017 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. I agree with your point, I had thought your concern is only about this patch, but actually it's not. > > 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 don't, sorry for make you misunderstand > > >> > >> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be > removed? > >> > >>> + > >>> #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */ > >>> > >
