On 4/10/2020 10:20 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 10/04/2020 11:04, Jerin Jacob: >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:26 PM Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 10/04/2020 10:44, Ferruh Yigit: >>>> On 10/25/2019 2:39 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:56 PM Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 25/10/2019 14:51, Ferruh Yigit: >>>>>>> "Flow API" is a method/API to implement various filtering features, on >>>>>>> its own it doesn't give much context on what features are provided. And >>>>>>> it is not really a feature, so doesn't fit into feature table. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also since other filtering related APIs, 'filter_ctrl', has been >>>>>>> deprecated, flow API is the only supported way in the DPDK to implement >>>>>>> filtering options, if related filter options announced by PMDs, listing >>>>>>> "Flow API" as implemented is redundant information. >>>>>> >>>>>> I fully agree with this explanation. >>>>>> rte_flow is the only supported API for flow offloads. >>>>>> That's why we must remove the legacy API. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini >>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini >>>>>>> -Flow API = >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> # Need to remove "Flow API" from doc/guides/nics/features.rst >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>>> # Need to remove refference of "Flow API" from "doc/guides/nics/*" as >>>>> well. >>>> >>>> "Flow API" is the implementation of the filtering, it may exist in the nic >>>> documentation, only it is not a feature on itself. I will scan the docs >>>> for usage. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not specific to this patch, >>>>> Probably we need to add a new matrix to enumerate PATTERN and ACTIONS >>>>> supported by each PMD as a rte_flow feature matrix. >>>>> That some else can take it up if everyone agrees the semantics. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1, there needs a way to figure out which filtering is supported by a >>>> device/driver. It is not documented and it is very hard to got it from the >>>> code. >>>> >>>> Not sure if a new matrix is the good way to go, but I agree we need some >>>> way to >>>> clarify it. >>> >>> I think we should split the matrix. >>> Adding a new matrix for flow offloads looks the way to go. >>> I suggest 3 matrices: >>> - port-level features >>> - queue-level features >>> - flow-level features >> >> Not sure what will be the details in "flow-level features". >> >> IMO, We need to have a separate matrix for subdomain features for >> rte_flow, rte_tm, rte_mtr, etc which part of ethdev. >> For instance, rte_flow features can be translated into a matrix of >> supported PATTERN and ACTIONS. > > Yes I'm also fine with this proposal. >
My concern is it will be too big and detailed, also hard to maintain which means it will be out dated a while later. After above said, I don't have a better solution right now ...
