On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:44:56AM +0000, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.ri...@6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:52 PM > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; Mcnamara, John > > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > >Hi Zhang, > > > > > >You should cram "flow API" somewhere in the title of such commits. > > > > > >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:28:54PM -0400, Qi Zhang wrote: > > >> Add new meta pattern item RTE_FLOW_TYPE_ITEM_ROUGHLY. > > >> > > >> This is for device that support no-perfect match option. > > >> Usually a no-perfect match is fast but the cost is accuracy. > > >> i.e. Signature Match only match pattern's hash value, but it is > > >> possible two different patterns have the same hash value. > > >> > > >> Matching accuracy level can be configure by subfield threshold. > > >> Driver can divide the range of threshold and map to different > > >> accuracy levels that device support. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > >While I really like the "roughly" pattern item name since it perfectly > > >describes its intended purpose in my opinion, perhaps some may not find > > >this name appropriate. I would like to hear other people's opinion on > > >the matter and not be the only one to ack this patch. > > > > "no-perfect" has been used a few times in the documentation. How about > > "IMPERFECT" as item name? > > > "Imperfect" looks better for me, > If no other objection, I will use this in V2.
An "imperfect threshold" doesn't make a lot more sense than a roughness one. Who wants to match flows imperfectly by the way? How about "fuzzy" then? Fuzzy matching, fuzzy thresholds, those are pretty well understood concepts. And people like fuzzy things. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND
