@Suanming Mou, could you please reword the description as Stephen suggested and send a new version? Hi, @Stephen Hemminger, PSB. Rule should be item, that would be more accurate.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 2:29 AM > To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com> > Cc: Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnow...@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko > <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Bing Zhao <bi...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam > <or...@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: update match with compare result item limitation > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 09:47:36 +0800 > Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > + - In switch mode, when ``repr_matching_en`` flag is enabled in the > devarg, > > + the match with compare result item is not supported to the > ``ingress`` > > + rule as an implicit REPRESENTED_PORT need to be added to the > matcher. > > + That REPRESENTED_PORT item conflicts with the single item > limitation for > > + match with compare result item. > > These sentences are hard to read, the wording is very awkward. > > Have no detailed insight into the mlx5 matching but maybe this wording: > > In switch mode, when the ``repr_matching_en`` flag is used then matching is used (by default) > with ingress comparison is not supported because an implicit rule is Implicit rule -> implicit item > required to match the REPRESENTED_PORT. And that implicit rule would Match the REPxxxx with the same rule Rule-> item > conflict with the ingress compare rule. Comparison item.
