From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AB07CBD for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:44:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 7so160695591wmo.1 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:44:39 -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:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=45e3V2R+Au+FzcBNRFYsMACfDYZ3MXYH7pHISlbkV08=; b=sbMyLTIsvEShKvjxMMpiNeszrFoFm25/HflRYWrBACGDqMo0GfkzhMIUPWpjlcfQev kTL/1dPpzGtd/VmQWC8MgisPC//ZabnjgKjxIo5FTmf/BD/kLIYHJFm4TxjYc2sxM5k5 +rvQb8WM8XeZGD8s2m4Bg29TdR8+RnJH3cTEyF+znCUc5RvP5Y0KmOHyuHuJivuSrc0N O/gpO9nk8FcbbhTMgwDt1e1aU+fKZ/EYsAFmJmcDVlxrBVgLXDrje+h969ycUnuMH7T7 BwIIWKTCf2lS1uCv9PiaQC2dmYaVHxeP8m/iG6DKKoJq85FqncWsqPxt6JEcGxBBMT3u lNYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=45e3V2R+Au+FzcBNRFYsMACfDYZ3MXYH7pHISlbkV08=; b=jklPqnosz13xlu0BIauufmqJdNUCRPq6+uWBgQhXVyr/tp78kWXjafQLHgnmUEy7d3 lRRLJUcH06bfxIjDTv0YakW4dKfleMByVEh6hxDX6HBCYx6rUxYf4x5Bx9ypqMXsMM0s hYdnKnwf3B/fB+9NVnADQ8idI8Iu97ILyzxqtaEL4pYcfsr3vPgNZ1QMGPMKKCLzJhPO TgQNRTVwDYsMAVqfY6D630AJDp5qXRMEOeqbuFn7u9CsBx3B8jH16Rgvxwt0gXEcfwbz q+fLi4JtN/r4S843MVAEqzkymPA40Ogy74f9wwcU6qtQAym1Y7I3k0UuGf1NSN57Kb3G y/tA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBFR6ky7zxSk+JeD85jbz+p9fMeIQzVu1fR6SA/yrcBQ8FJzG4A QoMd6/MuSev/HYUE X-Received: by 10.223.164.137 with SMTP id g9mr1560124wrb.128.1496328279557; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e83sm34371171wmc.28.2017.06.01.07.44.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:44:33 +0200 From: Adrien Mazarguil To: "Zhang, Qi Z" Cc: "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Mcnamara, John" Message-ID: <20170601144433.GI1758@6wind.com> References: <1495582134-13665-1-git-send-email-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> <20170530124630.GA1758@6wind.com> <20170531075129.GP14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611530A69E6@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611530A69E6@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 14:44:40 -0000 On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:44:56AM +0000, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:52 PM > > To: Zhang, Qi Z ; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil ; Mcnamara, John > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add roughly match pattern > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > >Hi Zhang, > > > > > >You should cram "flow API" somewhere in the title of such commits. > > > > > >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:28:54PM -0400, Qi Zhang wrote: > > >> Add new meta pattern item RTE_FLOW_TYPE_ITEM_ROUGHLY. > > >> > > >> This is for device that support no-perfect match option. > > >> Usually a no-perfect match is fast but the cost is accuracy. > > >> i.e. Signature Match only match pattern's hash value, but it is > > >> possible two different patterns have the same hash value. > > >> > > >> Matching accuracy level can be configure by subfield threshold. > > >> Driver can divide the range of threshold and map to different > > >> accuracy levels that device support. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang > > > > > >While I really like the "roughly" pattern item name since it perfectly > > >describes its intended purpose in my opinion, perhaps some may not find > > >this name appropriate. I would like to hear other people's opinion on > > >the matter and not be the only one to ack this patch. > > > > "no-perfect" has been used a few times in the documentation. How about > > "IMPERFECT" as item name? > > > "Imperfect" looks better for me, > If no other objection, I will use this in V2. An "imperfect threshold" doesn't make a lot more sense than a roughness one. Who wants to match flows imperfectly by the way? How about "fuzzy" then? Fuzzy matching, fuzzy thresholds, those are pretty well understood concepts. And people like fuzzy things. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND