Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics

Hi Adrien, > -Original Message- > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 2:47 AM > To: John Daley (johndale) > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate > semantics > > Hi John, > > On Thu, M

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics

Hi John, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 07:36:58PM -0700, John Daley wrote: > Hi, > > In implementing rte_flow_validate() for the Cisco enic, I got to wondering > if the semantics might be slightly off given how I see apps using it. > > Please forgive me if this has already been discussed, but during r

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics

Hi, In implementing rte_flow_validate() for the Cisco enic, I got to wondering if the semantics might be slightly off given how I see apps using it. Please forgive me if this has already been discussed, but during runtime, I can't see any reason why rte_flow_validate() would be called when rte_fl