From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com (mail-lf0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AFC6CC1 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:21:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x79so29746701lff.0 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 01:21:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=S7qmw9Oh/q0RqE65UX536poeiBfvb+qmOF35kDLIqjw=; b=QErrNze/jh7nCB1/hugzMMug4tFhXCwGeYwuuIq4T5oWtSzrALIz+zGqEFkdttw37A lorB33chjr/i5H3OSzcLQiCs/yzPMte+XNuOQ2OCmVviR7uR68UjcN5erOzo7BvP/Rkb sP2xlMlFkkhlIoefQExIuxah4pw05dKdXksNIdt8Z+wGe/Hui60fRt3QOC6smanSFXg4 DnHtohD8KyBP7ao9ggKBhqIinch5j6Si1GqaBAVwcWeAEJCH/Vcugyc5o4pkpEuy6Oc5 UX1BJsQLvomDE0b2y3XlejlmPSR2KwaMbwfvfLOJyicjmQ44nC6n5QqO+QqaIGZK+cd9 efHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=S7qmw9Oh/q0RqE65UX536poeiBfvb+qmOF35kDLIqjw=; b=JxAmiXLfCSnHzQNz4pLQKDI+DAwu1EDvQ5TMjYmah29y+N/jJvz5ZxaxM7/bABmgIM W1Svr5CKWRLkWy8kP1nhHFBnd6nJuMwMJpVAfL2oecvXQa7dGzGEZwxhonjta+OPp8NH y/t4RTmZL+JhuWTd4FUAfzFz2yQnVqdfxhZmgIoPU3BuP0mPRc7iScEQ+gyN1vH9Uusa sz5yhjdrgGOfd6iNLh1duuX/yU0N8YXtxCenW1qltfGo6P1S/Y5JmVpS3X5PrlZ7t540 TlOCDt9RDX0Utx+cBjnCm7xn3BbiiIs/3ZG/p4hblA+Ksk88U9C1VqGRNeFbGCRnaTwp +oug== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkpBJmLcC0nwh2MTJCSOqLaVh1LQxVAjnN6WcVPceqC+BUcnUKgTA+OC7sARriFNHAd X-Received: by 10.25.149.203 with SMTP id x194mr1535430lfd.76.1476174083615; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 01:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j137sm445826lfj.40.2016.10.11.01.21.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 01:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:21:16 +0200 From: Adrien Mazarguil To: "Zhao1, Wei" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20161011082116.GL17252@6wind.com> References: <20161010131927.GK17252@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API 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: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:21:24 -0000 Hi Wei, On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:47:53AM +0000, Zhao1, Wei wrote: > Hi Adrien Mazarguil, > There is a struct rte_flow_action_rss in rte_flow.txt, the member rss_conf is a pointer type, is there any convenience in using pointer? > Why not using struct rte_eth_rss_conf rss_conf type, as rte_flow_item_ipv4/ rte_flow_item_ipv6 struct member? > > Thank you. > > struct rte_flow_action_rss { > struct rte_eth_rss_conf *rss_conf; /**< RSS parameters. */ > uint16_t queues; /**< Number of entries in queue[]. */ > uint16_t queue[]; /**< Queues indices to use. */ > }; Well I thought it made sharing flow RSS configuration with its counterpart in struct rte_eth_conf easier (this pointer should even be const). Also, while ABI breakage would still occur if rte_eth_rss_conf happened to be modified, the impact on this API would be limited as it would not cause a change in structure size. We'd ideally need some kind of version field to be completely safe but I guess that would be somewhat overkill. Now considering this API was written without an initial implementation, all structure definitions that do not make sense are still open to debate, we can adjust them as needed. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND