From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744C9A0C41; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D9141147; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (relay10.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.230]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEAF40140 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:49:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: (Authenticated sender: i.maximets@ovn.org) by relay10.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22382240008; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:49:12 +0000 (UTC) To: Andrew Rybchenko , Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Ori Kam Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Eli Britstein , Ilya Maximets , Ajit Khaparde , Matan Azrad , Ivan Malov , Viacheslav Galaktionov References: <20210801102214.1566104-1-andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> From: Ilya Maximets Message-ID: <5664df76-33c7-773b-73f8-641af2535c7e@ovn.org> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:49:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210801102214.1566104-1-andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: announce flow API action PORT_ID changes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 8/1/21 12:22 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > By its very name, action PORT_ID means that packets hit an ethdev with the > given DPDK port ID. At least the current comments don't state the opposite. > That said, since port representors had been adopted, applications like OvS > have been misusing the action. They misread its purpose as sending packets > to the opposite end of the "wire" plugged to the given ethdev, for example, > redirecting packets to the VF itself rather than to its representor ethdev. > Another example: OvS relies on this action with the admin PF's ethdev port > ID specified in it in order to send offloaded packets to the physical port. Hi, Andrew. The deprecation notice itself looks OK to me. But I'd suggest to avoid words like "misuse" and "misread" in the commit message, because I don't think that it's correct. Since documentation is ambiguous, different people might interpret it differently. And also, implementation in DPDK matches with the way how OVS uses the API, otherwise offloading in OVS would just not work. So, OVS uses this API in a way as it is implemented in DPDK. If the definition of a DPDK API allows interpretations that doesn't match with the implementation inside the DPDK itself, that's not a fault of the external application. And this can not be labeled as "misuse"/"misread". Let's not create a precedent. Best regards, Ilya Maximets.