From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:44:33 +0200
Message-ID: <20170601144433.GI1758@6wind.com>
References: <1495582134-13665-1-git-send-email-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <20170530124630.GA1758@6wind.com>
 <20170531075129.GP14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
 <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611530A69E6@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
To: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AB07CBD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  1 Jun 2017 16:44:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 7so160695591wmo.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611530A69E6@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.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, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:44:56AM +0000, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:52 PM
> > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; Mcnamara, John
> > <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern
> > 
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > >Hi Zhang,
> > >
> > >You should cram "flow API" somewhere in the title of such commits.
> > >
> > >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:28:54PM -0400, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > >> Add new meta pattern item RTE_FLOW_TYPE_ITEM_ROUGHLY.
> > >>
> > >> This is for device that support no-perfect match option.
> > >> Usually a no-perfect match is fast but the cost is accuracy.
> > >> i.e. Signature Match only match pattern's hash value, but it is
> > >> possible two different patterns have the same hash value.
> > >>
> > >> Matching accuracy level can be configure by subfield threshold.
> > >> Driver can divide the range of threshold and map to different
> > >> accuracy levels that device support.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > >
> > >While I really like the "roughly" pattern item name since it perfectly
> > >describes its intended purpose in my opinion, perhaps some may not find
> > >this name appropriate. I would like to hear other people's opinion on
> > >the matter and not be the only one to ack this patch.
> > 
> > "no-perfect" has been used a few times in the documentation. How about
> > "IMPERFECT" as item name?
> > 
> "Imperfect" looks better for me, 
> If no other objection, I will use this in V2.

An "imperfect threshold" doesn't make a lot more sense than a roughness
one. Who wants to match flows imperfectly by the way?

How about "fuzzy" then? Fuzzy matching, fuzzy thresholds, those are pretty
well understood concepts. And people like fuzzy things.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND