Hi Ajit, Andrew & Ori.
PSB 😉
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:25 PM
> To: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Andrey Vesnovaty
> <andr...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>;
> jer...@marvell.com; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; j...@marvell.com; Jerin Jacob
> <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Stephen
> Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; Viacheslav
> Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; andrey.vesnov...@gmail.com; Ray
> Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Thomas
> Monjalon <tmonja...@nvidia.com>; Samik Gupta
> <samik.gu...@broadcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:03 AM Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 6:34 PM
> > > <samik.gu...@broadcom.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API
> > >
> > > On 9/16/20 10:20 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:52 AM Andrey Vesnovaty
> <andr...@nvidia.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Ajit
> > > >>
> > > >> For shared action configuration I have following suggestion:
> > > >>
> > > >> struct rte_flow_shared_action_conf {
> > > >> uint32_t no_ingress: 1;
> > > >> uint32_t no_egress: 1;
> > > >> };
> > > >> /*...*/
> > > >> rte_flow_shared_action_create(..., const struct
> > > rte_flow_shared_action_conf *conf, ...);
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think?
> > > > Andrey, I think this is good.
@Ajit Khaparde great to know.
> > > > Application can specify the direction and PMD can decide whether if
> > > > it needs to honor it or ignore it.
> > > > Please send the updated version of the patch.
> > >
I'm on it. See my answer to your last email. Thanks.
> > > Personally I dislike negative flags, offloads, fields etc.
> > > Don't we have a policy to avoid it. At least we have it for
> > > offloads. I see no string reasons here to use negative
> > > instead of positive here.
@Andrew Rybchenko & @Ori Kam Got your remark regarding "negative flags".
Will replace with:
struct rte_flow_shared_action_conf {
uint32_t ingress:1; /**< Action valid for rules applied to ingress
traffic. */
uint32_t egress:1; /**< Action valid for rules applied to egress
traffic. */
};
> >
> > Agree I think it is better to use positive values and the same names as the
> > attribute in the flow.
> Has a new version of the patch been submitted? Thanks
>
Thanks lot for your comments & remarks.
Hopefully new version of the patch will be published next week.
The new patch about to have testpmd for shared action to demonstrate usage.
> >
