From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Daley Subject: [PATCH v2 0/1] fix flow validate comments Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20170406224126.30345-1-johndale@cisco.com> References: <20170324023659.28099-2-johndale@cisco.com> Cc: thomas.monjalon@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org, John Daley To: adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com Return-path: Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA0F2C35 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 00:41:29 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170324023659.28099-2-johndale@cisco.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Adrien, Here is another crack at the comments for rte_flow_validate. Does this capture what you were explaining to me? I'm still not crazy about multiple meanings for EEXIST or ENOMEM since it makes them unusable by apps, but at least the comments try to explain it. In 17.08 what about having PMDs indicate if they support flow collision and resouce checking, or drop those return codes all together? cheers, john John Daley (1): ethdev: fix flow validate comments lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h | 17 ++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) -- 2.12.0