Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 5:32 PM > To: Fu, Patrick <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Richardson, Bruce > <[email protected]>; Wang, Zhihong <[email protected]>; > Wang, Liang-min <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <[email protected]>; Miskell, Timothy > <[email protected]>; Liang, Cunming <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Jiawei Wang <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib: introduce traffic mirroring API > > 31/07/2020 04:34, Fu, Patrick: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > > > > > > I assume you consider deprecating rte_eth_mirror_rule_set() > > > > http://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html#a1c88c5e86f0358981443600 > > > f > > > 05069091 > > > > > Not exactly. > > The rte_eth_mirror_rule_set() is vendor-dependent API which allows > admin to configure two components (traffic source and traffic destination) of > the same NIC so packets can be copied from traffic source to traffic > destination through hardware. The API allows vendor to implement this > function via hardware-dependent offloading capability. In contrast, this RFC > is proposing two high-level APIs (vendor independent) to allow admin > configuring mirror traffic from device A to device B where device A and B may > come from different vendors. In particular, our initial target is on software > virtual devices such as virtio/vhost where there is no mirror hw support. > > > > > Please consider reviewing this implementation in rte_flow: > > > https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/73279/ > > > > > For the same reason explained, this patch is also targeting at different use > cases with our RFC. > > We should not have different API depending on the device. > Please look how to unify in a single API. > I believe the proposed APIs work on a different abstraction level than existing APIs. But we can look into the possibility if they could be unified. So in general, do you think it's a right direction that we add common framework in DPDK to support cross devices traffic and vdev devices traffic mirroring?
Thanks, Patrick
