On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > Add action RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SWITCH_PORT, it can be used to redirect
I guess the word "SWITCH" should be remove from commit message. you don't use it later in the patch. > > +Action: ``PORT`` > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > + > +Redirect packets to an interface that connect to the same switch domain. > + > +The desitnation should be managed by a rte_ethdev instance, port_id is > +the identification of the destination. A typical use case is to define > +a flow that redirect packet to a interface that mananged by a Port > +Representor. A verbs would be better suited for an ACTION_TYPE. while ".._TYPE_PORT" is a nous. Probably ".._TYPE_REDIRECT" would better fit here. See man tc-mirred as referance: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/tc-mirred.8.html Do we want to distinguish between different destination type? The target might be a port (port_id) or potencial other destinations/queue. So maybe use ".._TYPE_REDIRECT_TO_PORT"? Anyway, I think you should remove the "same switch domain" from docs since there is no switch domain yet in DPDK. Lets let the PMD decided if this sucessed or fails, based on the target type and other HW limitations. Not just based on switch domain. PS: I agree switch domain needs to be introduced. I don't think port representor is the correct direction. Alex
