> -----Original Message----- > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.ri...@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:52 PM > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; Mcnamara, John > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > >Hi Zhang, > > > >You should cram "flow API" somewhere in the title of such commits. > > > >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:28:54PM -0400, Qi Zhang wrote: > >> Add new meta pattern item RTE_FLOW_TYPE_ITEM_ROUGHLY. > >> > >> This is for device that support no-perfect match option. > >> Usually a no-perfect match is fast but the cost is accuracy. > >> i.e. Signature Match only match pattern's hash value, but it is > >> possible two different patterns have the same hash value. > >> > >> Matching accuracy level can be configure by subfield threshold. > >> Driver can divide the range of threshold and map to different > >> accuracy levels that device support. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > > > >While I really like the "roughly" pattern item name since it perfectly > >describes its intended purpose in my opinion, perhaps some may not find > >this name appropriate. I would like to hear other people's opinion on > >the matter and not be the only one to ack this patch. > > "no-perfect" has been used a few times in the documentation. How about > "IMPERFECT" as item name? > "Imperfect" looks better for me, If no other objection, I will use this in V2.
Thanks Qi > -- > Gaëtan Rivet > 6WIND
