From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] doc: fix flow validate comments
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:11:43 +0200
Message-ID: <20170421081142.GY3790@6wind.com>
References: <20170407002300.14433-1-johndale@cisco.com>
 <20170420184933.27450-1-johndale@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: john.mcnamara@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org
To: John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1D947CE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:11:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m123so10767844wma.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170420184933.27450-1-johndale@cisco.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:49:33AM -0700, John Daley wrote:
> Change comments for rte_flow_validate() function to indicate that flow
> rule collision and resource validation is optional for PMDs and
> therefore the return codes may have different meanings.
> 
> Fixes: b1a4b4cbc0a8 ("ethdev: introduce generic flow API")
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>

One last nit below (not sure if you need to send a new version). In any
case:

Acked-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>

[...]
> @@ -1360,8 +1362,13 @@ Return values:
>  - ``-EINVAL``: unknown or invalid rule specification.
>  - ``-ENOTSUP``: valid but unsupported rule specification (e.g. partial
>    bit-masks are unsupported).
> -- ``-EEXIST``: collision with an existing rule.
> -- ``-ENOMEM``: not enough resources.
> +- ``EEXIST``: collision with an existing rule. Only returned if device
> +  supports flow rule collision checking and there was a flow rule
> +  collision. Not receiving this return code is no guarantee that creating
> +  the rule will not fail due to a collision.
> +- ``ENOMEM``: not enough memory to execute the function, or if the device
> +  supports resource validation, resource limitation on the device.
> +

This new empty line should be removed.

>  - ``-EBUSY``: action cannot be performed due to busy device resources, may
>    succeed if the affected queues or even the entire port are in a stopped
>    state (see ``rte_eth_dev_rx_queue_stop()`` and ``rte_eth_dev_stop()``).
[...]

Thanks.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND