On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:05:30PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 10/6/2017 9:05 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:13:14AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> On 10/5/2017 10:49 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > >>> This series brings enhancements to various rte_flow helpers: > >>> > >>> - Allow applications to use rte_flow_error_set() by making it part of the > >>> public interface and documenting it as such. > >>> > >>> - Address rte_flow_copy()'s limitations by replacing it with the more > >>> versatile rte_flow_conv(). This new function allows retrieving other > >>> properties such as item/action names, enabling testpmd to finally use it > >>> and get rid of duplicated code. > >>> > >>> - Add a script (gen-rte_flow_conv-h.sh) to help with generating the > >>> resources used by rte_flow_conv(). Developers should run it when adding > >>> or > >>> modifying pattern items or actions (done as part of this series to add > >>> the > >>> missing "fuzzy" pattern item). > >>> > >>> - Future plans for rte_flow_conv() include translating error codes to > >>> human-readable messages, so applications do not have to make their own. > >>> > >>> All these changes address concerns raised a couple of months ago [1]. Work > >>> on these patches actually started at the time but I was unable to complete > >>> and clean them up until recently. > >>> > >>> [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-July/070492.html > >>> > >>> Adrien Mazarguil (7): > >>> ethdev: expose flow API error helper > >>> ethdev: replace flow API object copy function > >>> ethdev: add flow API item/action name conversion > >>> app/testpmd: rely on flow API conversion function > >>> ethdev: enhance flow API item/action descriptions > >>> ethdev: generate flow API conversion header > >>> ethdev: update flow API conversion header > >> > >> Hi Adrien, > >> > >> This received too late for this release cycle, and changes in rte_flow > >> library may effect PMDs. > >> > >> I suggest deferring the set to next release, what do you think? > > > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > My opinion as the author (since you're asking :) is that it would be nice to > > have it in this release assuming reviewers don't find blocker issues with > > it. > > Review part may be the problem, since this is very short notice before > release, relevant parties may not review this on time. > And they will be right to not expect a new feature like this after > proposal deadline.
Yes, I generally agree with that. > > To summarize the changes from a PMD standpoint: > > > > - rte_flow_error() (previously not public) switching from positive to > > negative return value like the other rte_flow_*() functions. The only PMDs > > relying on its return value so far are mlx4 and tap. > > > > - rte_flow_copy() disappearing. This function was temporary pending a better > > solution, and so far is only used by fail-safe PMD (modified as part of > > this series). Besides fail-safe, PMDs did not a have a use case for this > > function. > > Although you update all rte_flow_copy() usage in the DPDK, this is > public API right, and technically a user code may be using this, can we > remove this without notice? Right, actually rte_flow_copy() was missing the EXPERIMENTAL tag. It's been present for a single release and wasn't documented as being officially part of the public rte_flow interface, unlike this series with rte_flow_conv(). For various reasons including its lack of flexibility (enforced by the struct rte_flow_desc format), I honestly believe rte_flow_copy() is only presently used by the fail-safe PMD. I may be wrong, and in the case of complaints the plan is to re-add rte_flow_copy() as a wrapper to rte_flow_conv() later as a standard maintenance fix. > > These patches were originally targeted at 17.08, and since the "fuzzy" item > > is missing from rte_flow_copy() (GTP/GTPU/GTPC are now also missing by the > > way) and there is currently a lot of redundancy between this function and > > testpmd's internals, I thought it would be a good time to have everything in > > a single place. I was also considering using rte_flow_conv() in upcoming > > mlx4 patches in case it was included. > > > > So here's my suggestion: I can track all rte_flow-related changes in PMDs > > and in rte_flow itself and update this series accordingly until things have > > settled (e.g. I'll re-submit to rebase and include GTP). Once applied, I > > will check all new code that relies on these two functions and update it if > > necessary until the release. How about that? > > I have no concern that you will do the necessary updates, and agreed it > is good to get updates to help maintenance, and it would be nice to have > these in the this LTS release. > > After above said, API changes one week before integration deadline, a > new script and make target for automated header file, I am a little > scared :), I will be much relieved to get this in the beginning of the > next release cycle. I can drop the script from this series to speed up inclusion if it there's any concern about it. It's only a helper to update rte_flow_conv.h after modifying rte_flow.h, I thought it could be useful to anyone, hence I've included it but it's pretty much optional. > I would like to see more comment on this, specially from PMD maintainers. Me too. I don't even mind negative ones! Here's what I plan to do regardless, seeing most concerns so far are with rte_flow_copy()/rte_flow_conv(): - Whether this series is included for 17.11 or later, a v2 is already necessary. - I will drop the rte_flow_error() change to submit it instead along another upcoming series for mlx4 where it's the most needed. - We'll then continue to discuss rte_flow_conv() as a something nice to have but not super urgent to integrate and I'll keep trying to convince everyone it's safe enough. - Once it becomes clear there's no way to have it for 17.11, I'll update this series as a somewhat late deprecation notice for rte_flow_copy(). Sounds good? -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND
