Friday, September 27, 2019 5:46 PM, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran:
> subsystem
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:33 PM
> > To: Shahaf Shuler <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Cc: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <[email protected]>; Hemant
> > Agrawal <[email protected]>; Opher Reviv
> <[email protected]>;
> > Alex Rosenbaum <[email protected]>; Dovrat Zifroni
> > <[email protected]>; Prasun Kapoor <[email protected]>; Nipun
> Gupta
> > <[email protected]>; Wang, Xiang W <[email protected]>;
> > Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1] regexdev: introduce regexdev
> > subsystem
> >
> > > Hi Jerin,
> >
> > Hi Shahaf,
> >
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @see rte_regex_rule_db_import(), rte_regex_rule_db_export()
> > > > +*/ uint16_t rte_regex_rule_db_update(uint8_t dev_id, const struct
> > > > +rte_regex_rule
> > > > *rules,
> > > > + uint16_t nb_rules);
> > >
> > > I think the function name is not too informative. If this function
> > > meant to compile the rule then it should be explicit on the function
> name.
> >
> > It is meant to be compile the rules and then update the rule database.
> >
> > I think, we can have either 1 or 2. Let me know your preference or If
> > you have any name suggestion. I will change it accordingly.
> >
> > 1. rte_regex_rule_db_compile()
> > 2. rte_regex_rule_db_compile_update()
>
>
> @Shahaf Shuler, Thoughts?
IMO we should have two separate functions - one to only compile. One to only
update.
So I would prefer #1, with addition (if not already present) of API to update
rules.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct rte_regex_ops {
> > > > +
> > > > + /* W4 */
> > > > + RTE_STD_C11
> > > > + union {
> > > > + uint64_t user_id;
> > > > + /**< Application specific opaque value. An application
> > > > may
> > > > use
> > > > + * this field to hold application specific value to
> > > > share
> > > > + * between dequeue and enqueue operation.
> > > > + * Implementation should not modify this field.
> > > > + */
> > > > + void *user_ptr;
> > > > + /**< Pointer representation of *user_id* */
> > > > + };
> > >
> > > Since we target the regex subsystem for both regex and DPI I think
> > > it will be good to add another uint64_t field called connection_id.
> > > Device that support DPI can refer to it as another match able field
> > > when looking up for matches on the given buffer.
> > >
> > > This field is different from the user_id, as it is not opaque for the
> > > device.
> >
> > Is this driver specific storage place where application should not touch it?
> >
> > If not, Could you share the data flow of this field? Ie. Who "write"
> > this Field and who "read" this field.
Application writes to the field. Device reads from this fields.
Unlike the user_ptr which is complete opaque to the device, connection_id field
will have some meaning (e.g. DPI rules can apply on it).
>
> @Shahaf Shuler Thoughts?
>
> Based on your input, I will update the next version.
>
> >
> > This is just for documentation, In any event we can add new fields.
> >
> > If it is only for driver usage then I think, some driver may need more
> > 8B Storage. In that case I think, each driver can add its on field
> > After W4(i.e existing user_id) and introduce new field called
> > match_offset in struct rte_regex_ops
> >
> > ie. struct rte_regex_match *matches == ops + ops-> match_offset; so
> > that, Each driver can add enough driver specific metadata.
> >
> >
> >
