On 9/19/2026 6:09 PM, Medvedkin, Vladimir wrote:
On 9/16/2026 1:18 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
Current implementation of flow engines in various drivers have a few
issues
that need to be corrected.
For one, some of the
seems like a missed word?
Not missed, typoed - should've been "them" not "the" :)
are fundamentally incompatible with secondary
processes, because the flow engine registration and creation will
allocate structures in shared memory but use process-local pointers to
point to flow engines and pattern tables.
<snip>
+
+ /* no engine could handle this flow */
+ CI_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "no engine accepted the flow");
+ flow = NULL;
+ rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
+ RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL,
+ "No flow engine could handle the requested flow");
This unconditionally rewrites error string, don't we want to keep the
last reason why flow wasn't created? Same is applied for validate.
No, if no engine accepted the flow that means there are no meaningful
error messages to be had here. If the pattern matching failed but
should've succeeded, there is no way for us to tell whether it was
*supposed to* succeed or whether this pattern genuinely needs a
different engine. So, if no engine accepted the flow, we have no idea
whether it's because the flow is genuinely unsupported, or because there
is a bug in engine implementation.
In contrast, if the engine has accepted the flow (i.e. if *parsing*
succeeded), then a failure on register/install is a genuine error, in
which case we do not try other engines, and output a meaningful error
message.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
