> -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 16:41 > To: Slava Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact-Thomas > Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > <[email protected]>; Ajit Khaparde > <[email protected]>; Somnath Kotur > <[email protected]>; Rahul Lakkireddy > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Ori Kam <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ethdev: deprecate header fields and metadata flow > actions > > On 11/25/2021 2:13 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 15:07 > >> To: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>; Ajit Khaparde > >> <[email protected]>; Somnath Kotur > >> <[email protected]>; Rahul Lakkireddy > >> <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko > >> <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected]; Ori Kam <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ethdev: deprecate header fields and metadata > >> flow actions > >> > >> 25/11/2021 12:53, Ferruh Yigit: > >>> On 11/24/2021 3:37 PM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > >>>> The generic RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MODIFY_FIELD action was > >> introduced > >>>> by [1]. This action provides an unified way to perform various > >>>> arithmetic and transfer operations over packet network header > >>>> fields and packet metadata. > >>>> > >>>> [1] commit 641dbe4fb053 ("net/mlx5: support modify field flow > >>>> action") > >>>>
[..snip..] > > +1 > > Dropping VLAN might trigger an avalanche of changes in applications - it is > supported by multiple PMDs and should be widely engaged. > > Other legacy actions are supported by very limited set of drivers and usage > area should be smaller, I would say risk is moderate. > > > > Got it, 'SET_VLAN*' is treat differently because its impact can be more. > > Can we do the same for other implemented actions, support them longer and > give more time for deprecation. > How big will be the maintenance cost in the PMD? Yes, I share your concern. Sure, there should be the time period of handling both actions. And there is our intention for mlx5 at least. I think development/maintenance costs should not raise significantly - the main efforts is supposed for implementing MODIFY_FIELD action. Please, see my previous mail about milestones. With best regards, Slava
