Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: remove flow API from the feature list

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

10/04/2020 10:44, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/25/2019 2:39 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:56 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> 25/10/2019 14:51, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>> "Flow API" is a method/API to implement various filtering features, on
> >>> its own it doesn't give much context on what features are provided. And
> >>> it is not really a feature, so doesn't fit into feature table.
> >>>
> >>> Also since other filtering related APIs, 'filter_ctrl', has been
> >>> deprecated, flow API is the only supported way in the DPDK to implement
> >>> filtering options, if related filter options announced by PMDs, listing
> >>> "Flow API" as implemented is redundant information.
> >>
> >> I fully agree with this explanation.
> >> rte_flow is the only supported API for flow offloads.
> >> That's why we must remove the legacy API.
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini
> >>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini
> >>> -Flow API             =
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 
> > # Need to remove "Flow API" from doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> 
> +1
> 
> > # Need to remove refference of "Flow API" from "doc/guides/nics/*" as well.
> 
> "Flow API" is the implementation of the filtering, it may exist in the nic
> documentation, only it is not a feature on itself. I will scan the docs for usage.
> 
> > 
> > Not specific to this patch,
> > Probably we need to add a new matrix to enumerate PATTERN and ACTIONS
> > supported by each PMD as a rte_flow feature matrix.
> > That some else can take it up if everyone agrees the semantics.
> > 
> 
> +1, there needs a way to figure out which filtering is supported by a
> device/driver. It is not documented and it is very hard to got it from the code.
> 
> Not sure if a new matrix is the good way to go, but I agree we need some way to
> clarify it.

I think we should split the matrix.
Adding a new matrix for flow offloads looks the way to go.
I suggest 3 matrices:
	- port-level features
	- queue-level features
	- flow-level features