Re: [PATCH v1 01/21] ethdev: add flow graph API

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

27/08/2026 09:58, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 8/26/2026 4:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 26/08/2026 12:20, Burakov, Anatoly:
> >> On 8/26/2026 11:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 26/08/2026 10:58, Burakov, Anatoly:
> >>>> On 8/25/2026 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>> 20/08/2026 16:00, Anatoly Burakov:
> >>>>>> This commit adds a flow graph parsing API. This is a helper API intended to
> >>>>>> help ethdev drivers implement rte_flow parsers, as common usages map to
> >>>>>> graph traversal problem very well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Features provided by the API:
> >>>>>> - Flow graph, edge, and node definitions
> >>>>>> - Graph traversal logic
> >>>>>> - Declarative validation against common flow item types
> >>>>>> - Per-node validation and state processing callbacks
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_flow_graph.h                 | 532 ++++++++++++++
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we sure about the name? Why not "parsing" instead of "graph"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because it is intended to help build *protocol graphs*, not *generic
> >>>> flow parsing*. I.e. only things that lend themselves to be represented
> >>>> by a graph would work with this - things like conntrack wouldn't. So, I
> >>>> feel like "graph" is a more accurate name for this, because this is only
> >>>> for enabling the protocol graph walk, not for full flow parsing.
> >>>
> >>> OK
> >>>
> >>>>> Is it only for drivers? In this case, no need to make it a public API.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it is for drivers. It is not a public API, it is not installed into
> >>>> public headers. If there is anything I forgot to do to remove it from
> >>>> being public, please let me know.
> >>>
> >>> You should not use the rte_ prefix for files which are not public.
> >>> I know this convention is not well followed for historical reason,
> >>> like rte_flow_driver.h should be flow_driver.h
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The fact that it didn't look like there was no convention was why I
> >> picked rte_ prefix. I'll happily use a non-rte prefix for these. Maybe
> >> use eth_ prefix for both flow_graph and flow_driver? Or does flow_graph
> >> work fine?
> > 
> > I don't think adding eth prefix is needed.
> > 
> >> [on a separate note: should rte_vfio follow suit and be renamed? it is
> >> no longer a public API following my patchset. renaming it to `vfio`
> >> would probably cause conflicts with Linux headers, so maybe something
> >> like vfio_driver like flow_driver?]
> > 
> > Yes vfio_driver looks fine.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Actually, on second thought, "vfio_driver" is too similar to 
> "bus_driver" and "dev_driver" which kind of implies that "vfio_driver" 
> is for writing vfio drivers. Maybe dev_vfio would be better?
> 
> (flow_driver sits in lib/ethdev which is a driver subsystem, but vfio 
> sits in EAL which is not, so for flow_driver I think "flow_driver" is 
> OK, but vfio header is in common include together with bus_driver and 
> dev_driver, I think vfio_driver would be confusing)

OK