On 10/19/21 3:37 PM, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > It is unspecified whether flow rules and indirect actions are kept > when a port is stopped, possibly reconfigured, and started again. > Vendors approach the topic differently, e.g. mlx5 and i40e PMD > disagree in whether flow rules can be kept, and mlx5 PMD would keep > indirect actions. In the end, applications are greatly affected > by whatever contract there is and need to know it. > > It is proposed to advertise capabilities of keeping flow rules > and indirect actions (as a special case of shared object) > using a combination of ethdev info and rte_flow calls. > Then a bug is fixed in mlx5 PMD that prevented indirect RSS action > from being kept, and the driver starts advertising the new capability. > > Prior discussions: > 1) http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20210727073121.895620-1-dkozl...@nvidia.com/ > 2) http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20210901085516.3647814-1-dkozl...@nvidia.com/
Is there real usecase for keeping flow rules or indirect actions? Why does application want to restart port?
