Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:12:47PM CET, d...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >On 11/23/17 6:40 AM, Arkadi Sharshevsky wrote: >> >> >> On 11/19/2017 05:58 PM, David Ahern wrote: >>> On 11/19/17 2:16 AM, Arkadi Sharshevsky wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/18/2017 09:19 PM, David Ahern wrote: >>>>> On 11/14/17 9:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>>> From: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arka...@mellanox.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Connect current dpipe tables to resources. The tables are connected >>>>>> in the following fashion: >>>>>> 1. IPv4 host - KVD hash single >>>>>> 2. IPv6 host - KVD hash double >>>>>> 3. Adjacency - KVD linear >>>>> >>>>> Those descriptions would be helpful to the user. A description attribute >>>>> for the resources? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As described in the cover letter this resources are used by the >>>> majority of the ASICs lookup processes. So currently there is one >>>> to one mapping but is should increase as more tables are exposed, >>>> so I don't think its a good idea to maintain such an attribute. >>>> >>> >>> 'IPv4 host' yes, but I mean the term 'KVD hash single'? Is it the same >>> across all h/w vendors? I have only seen that in the context of MLX. If >>> it is a MLX term then a description to the user that KVD hash single == >>> IPv4 host is warranted. >>> >> >> But this relation is wrong, there is no equality here. The LPM, FDB and >> VID to FID mapping are all can be modeled as lookup tables (via dpipe) >> that use KVD hash single resource. >> >> This description string will grow very long. I dont think this is the >> right place to document such thing, eitherway, the user can dump the >> dpipe tables and see which is mapped to what resource. > >Users should not have to find a PRM or user guide for *each version of >their hardware* to program something so fundamental. This is software. >We can make it user friendly. Use of vendor specific terms is fine -- >allows correlation to vendor docs. But there should also be text to help >the user correlate vendor terms to generic industry terms.
I have to be missing something. You can easily see the relation between each dpipe table and resources already as a part of this patchset. The string you suggest shows the same thing, therefore it is completely redundant. What am I missing?
