From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from stargate3.asicdesigners.com (stargate.chelsio.com [12.32.117.8]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A7A8D8F for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:12:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com [10.193.185.94]) by stargate3.asicdesigners.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0F7CGjr024691; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:12:17 -0800 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:41:49 +0530 From: Rahul Lakkireddy To: "Wu, Jingjing" Message-ID: <20160115071148.GA26253@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> References: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8D74B6B@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20160113084920.GA6469@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8D80272@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8D85DED@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20160114131728.GA2434@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8D8622A@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8D8622A@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Felix Marti , Nirranjan Kirubaharan , Kumar A S Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/2] ethdev: add packet filter flow and new behavior switch to fdir X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:12:20 -0000 Hi Jingjing, On Thursday, January 01/14/16, 2016 at 17:30:53 -0800, Wu, Jingjing wrote: > Hi, Rahul > > > This approach seems generic enough to allow any vendor specific data > > to be passed in filter as well. However, 80 seems to be too low for > > multiple flow types that can be combined in the same filter rule. > > I think size of 256 seems reasonable. > > > Yes, 80 is just an example. > > Could the same thing be done for action arguments as well? Can we add > > the same generic info to rte_eth_fdir_action too? > > > > struct rte_eth_fdir_action { > > uint16_t rx_queue; > > enum rte_eth_fdir_behavior behavior; > > enum rte_eth_fdir_status report_status; > > uint8_t flex_off; > > + uint8_t behavior_arg[256]; > > }; > > > > This way, we can pass vendor specific action arguments too. What do > > you think? > Yes, it also makes sense. > > Also, now if we take this approach then, I am wondering, that all > > vendors would need to document their own vendor-specific format of > > taking filter match and filter action arguments, right? > > > > And probably, even come up with their own example application showing > > how to apply filters via dpdk on their card? > Yes, I guess it will be better to doc it or example it. Even currently, different kinds of NIC may need different configuration. > Or you can add description (how to configure) in your driver's comment log? > Not sure about the others' opinion? > > Thanks > Jingjing Ok. We will wait for a couple of days to get more opinions from others. If the above generic approach is agreeable to everyone, then I will post the patch series using this new approach. Thanks, Rahul