From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:49:32 +0530 Message-ID: <20170214031932.GB3131@localhost.localdomain> References: <1484804043-50156-1-git-send-email-yong.liu@intel.com> <20170119184552.GB3779@6wind.com> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B55C21C@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2644957.VYUMgdHQjR@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Lu, Wenzhuo" , Adrien Mazarguil , "Liu, Yong" , dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0052.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8579E7 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2644957.VYUMgdHQjR@xps13> 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 Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-01-20 02:14, Lu, Wenzhuo: > > Hi Adrien, Thomas, Yong, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien Mazarguil > > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:46 AM > > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > > Cc: Liu, Yong; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:06:34AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2017-01-19 13:34, Yong Liu: > > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for 17.05: structure > > > > > +``rte_eth_tunnel_filter_conf`` > > > > > + will be extended with a new member ``vf_id`` in order to enable > > > > > +cloud filter > > > > > + on VF device. > > > > > > > > I think we should stop rely on this API, and migrate to rte_flow instead. > > > > Adrien any thought? > > > > > > I'm all for using rte_flow in any case. I've already documented an approach to > > > convert TUNNEL filter rules to rte_flow rules [1], although it may be > > > incomplete due to my limited experience with this filter type. We already > > > know several tunnel item types must be added (currently only VXLAN is > > > defined). > > > > > > I understand ixgbe/i40e currently map rte_flow on top of the legacy > > > framework, therefore extending this structure might still be needed in the > > > meantime. Not sure we should prevent this change as long as such rules can be > > > configured through rte_flow as well. > > > > > > [1] http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#tunnel-to-eth-ipv4- > > > ipv6-vxlan-or-other-queue > > The problem is we haven't finished transferring all the functions from the regular filters to the generic filters. > > For example, igb, fm10k and enic haven't support generic filters yet. Ixgbe and i40e have supported the basic functions, but some advance features are not transferred to generic filters yet. > > Seems it's not the time to remove the regular filters. Yong, I suggest to support both generic filter and regular filter in parallel. > > So, we need to announce ABI change for the regular filter, until someday we remove the regular filter API. > > I disagree. > There is a new API framework (rte_flow) and we must focus on this transition. > It means we must stop any work on the legacy API. I agree with Thomas here.