Hi Ferruh, Qi, <snip>
> > >> 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? This seems to be the existing naming convention. > > > > 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 I don't think changing the name convention at this point is a good idea. It would be better to remain consistent with the existing naming convention. Otherwise both naming conventions will exist for the rte_pmd_i40e_* API's. > > >> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be > > removed? > > >> > > >>> + > > >>> #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */ > > >>> > > > Regards, Bernard.
