Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter

[Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-01-20 02:14, Lu, Wenzhuo:
> > Hi Adrien, Thomas, Yong,
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien Mazarguil
> > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:46 AM
> > > To: Thomas Monjalon
> > > Cc: Liu, Yong; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:06:34AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2017-01-19 13:34, Yong Liu:
> > > > > +* ABI changes are planned for 17.05: structure
> > > > > +``rte_eth_tunnel_filter_conf``
> > > > > +  will be extended with a new member ``vf_id`` in order to enable
> > > > > +cloud filter
> > > > > +  on VF device.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should stop rely on this API, and migrate to rte_flow instead.
> > > > Adrien any thought?
> > > 
> > > I'm all for using rte_flow in any case. I've already documented an approach to
> > > convert TUNNEL filter rules to rte_flow rules [1], although it may be
> > > incomplete due to my limited experience with this filter type. We already
> > > know several tunnel item types must be added (currently only VXLAN is
> > > defined).
> > > 
> > > I understand ixgbe/i40e currently map rte_flow on top of the legacy
> > > framework, therefore extending this structure might still be needed in the
> > > meantime. Not sure we should prevent this change as long as such rules can be
> > > configured through rte_flow as well.
> > > 
> > > [1] http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#tunnel-to-eth-ipv4-
> > > ipv6-vxlan-or-other-queue
> > The problem is we haven't finished transferring all the functions from the regular filters to the generic filters. 
> > For example, igb, fm10k and enic haven't support generic filters yet. Ixgbe and i40e have supported the basic functions, but some advance features are not transferred to generic filters yet.
> > Seems it's not the time to remove the regular filters. Yong, I suggest to support both generic filter and regular filter in parallel.
> > So, we need to announce ABI change for the regular filter, until someday we remove the regular filter API. 
> 
> I disagree.
> There is a new API framework (rte_flow) and we must focus on this transition.
> It means we must stop any work on the legacy API.

I agree with Thomas here.