From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 25/25] doc: describe testpmd flow command Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:51:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20161220105118.GS10340@6wind.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Kevin Traynor To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A01FB3E for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:51:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f82so126708206wmf.1 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 02:51:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:44:07PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien Mazarguil > > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 5:49 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 25/25] doc: describe testpmd flow command > > > > Document syntax, interaction with rte_flow and provide usage examples. > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil > > > > ... > > > > + > > +- Check whether a flow rule can be created:: > > + > > + flow validate {port_id} > > + [group {group_id}] [priority {level}] [ingress] [egress] > > + pattern {item} [/ {item} [...]] / end > > + actions {action} [/ {action} [...]] / end > > + > > +- Create a flow rule:: > > + > > + flow create {port_id} > > + [group {group_id}] [priority {level}] [ingress] [egress] > > + pattern {item} [/ {item} [...]] / end > > + actions {action} [/ {action} [...]] / end > > + > > +- Destroy specific flow rules:: > > + > > + flow destroy {port_id} rule {rule_id} [...] > > + > > +- Destroy all flow rules:: > > + > > + flow flush {port_id} > > + > > Just a note: > > The verbs destroy and flush don't sound right here. Create/destroy are common > verbs pairs for objects but these actions are more like add/remove. I guess the > names come from the underlying APIs which possibly are creating/freeing > objects/structures but maybe they should be called add/remove as well. > > And flush generally applies to a pipeline or a queue. The action here is closer > to "remove all". > > Probably not worth reworking at this stage if it hasn't bothered anyone else. Well, Kevin Traynor made a similar suggestion to which I replied that the name would be modified if enough people complained [1]. I understand your point but for some reason I keep hearing a flushing noise every time all rules are removed at once, hence the name. Problem is also that we now have 3 PMD series floating on the ML that depend on the current definition. If we decided to change it, I suggest doing so in a separate fix. A few more complaints from developers are needed before it's too late for 17.02. > > +underlying device in its current state but stops short of creating it. > > +It is bound to ``rte_flow_validate()``:: > > + > > + flow validate {port_id} > > + [group {group_id}] [priority {level}] [ingress] [egress] > > + pattern {item} [/ {item} [...]] / end > > + actions {action} [/ {action} [...]] / end > > + > > Here and elsewhere the indentation should be the RST standard 3 spaces, > similar to the rest of the doc. This is only worth changing if you > do some other revision of this doc. > > Otherwise very good documentation. > > Acked-by: John McNamara Thanks, I'll make those changes if anything else warrants a v4. [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/050973.html -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND