26/08/2026 12:20, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 8/26/2026 11:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/08/2026 10:58, Burakov, Anatoly: > >> On 8/25/2026 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 20/08/2026 16:00, Anatoly Burakov: > >>>> This commit adds a flow graph parsing API. This is a helper API intended > >>>> to > >>>> help ethdev drivers implement rte_flow parsers, as common usages map to > >>>> graph traversal problem very well. > >>>> > >>>> Features provided by the API: > >>>> - Flow graph, edge, and node definitions > >>>> - Graph traversal logic > >>>> - Declarative validation against common flow item types > >>>> - Per-node validation and state processing callbacks > >>> [...] > >>>> lib/ethdev/rte_flow_graph.h | 532 ++++++++++++++ > >>> > >>> Are we sure about the name? Why not "parsing" instead of "graph"? > >>> > >> > >> Because it is intended to help build *protocol graphs*, not *generic > >> flow parsing*. I.e. only things that lend themselves to be represented > >> by a graph would work with this - things like conntrack wouldn't. So, I > >> feel like "graph" is a more accurate name for this, because this is only > >> for enabling the protocol graph walk, not for full flow parsing. > > > > OK > > > >>> Is it only for drivers? In this case, no need to make it a public API. > >> > >> Yes, it is for drivers. It is not a public API, it is not installed into > >> public headers. If there is anything I forgot to do to remove it from > >> being public, please let me know. > > > > You should not use the rte_ prefix for files which are not public. > > I know this convention is not well followed for historical reason, > > like rte_flow_driver.h should be flow_driver.h > > > > > > The fact that it didn't look like there was no convention was why I > picked rte_ prefix. I'll happily use a non-rte prefix for these. Maybe > use eth_ prefix for both flow_graph and flow_driver? Or does flow_graph > work fine?
I don't think adding eth prefix is needed. > [on a separate note: should rte_vfio follow suit and be renamed? it is > no longer a public API following my patchset. renaming it to `vfio` > would probably cause conflicts with Linux headers, so maybe something > like vfio_driver like flow_driver?] Yes vfio_driver looks fine.
