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 1D89FA0C47; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F9240F35; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:52:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A2F40DDA for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:52:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id gn26so10733281ejc.3 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:52:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fbMQZymF/Y9wLLxvRczY7FeDJsbnTzBT7vp8NdwqQjg=; b=hFt0Ysk2p2rXAJyumc/mcv00t/ea6XqcNE1qW2HS/N4PgkRd4Ihnbduwcp1ULQqPEX y/hTvuen9OMHo0Iqw9YkUe4eR4tAURGvm0mNCiinHVC9dWieNrUZ0+E8fv6mVp0ZkgKB +3i5WfanFfoYQBDEbdzpv3MwV/qfwFEofdQiU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fbMQZymF/Y9wLLxvRczY7FeDJsbnTzBT7vp8NdwqQjg=; b=A4g2j4qqkpazhF6/U3RGEIsnYVpvQLC7byGbStyYkExD/T2Id8NflSftrdYSqjQ1v5 8lMKOrBogYOBbQ3Dfa2tJuJ51n7HfMiShOEEE6XAXJep+j8poq89wt5wKZRdXhq/G82I TXwBm/IOlpZVAWZ7dBW3k/NpiBsb7ap1SGf+OiZAa19LNON1sqmhbV+KodZSS6jD7MoI 27JYgYX7H04GicYzrb81Kl7iy8zJutfgARzOhwPreCo8QnaVux9laOpOWM/vYdD+pPJm Nzd97sMQFUxQYYEdTqzRQC3sdlONy2TOrfv2aZjvZVjnTryGoiu/4dGwfW8qn24rlT7t ODfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530JG3gaSQQmDvBDjX56Ic45HIE0yUBl0C0TZNk1hGJpgSOq0kyM ZCxn5ylYEkkIk4MF4XVlLiENOlipkK/n+sicwNtMTQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz5sK2zQ4n39VpXNssuhr6Dc1cPO3dwdGyhx6Uc4iiHutny5SLrMJrqET3BN5Oo9xx3Zt4CHpY2xaU5WTGDnR8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7293:: with SMTP id dt19mr17502121ejc.122.1627311165569; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:52:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210721155816.188795-3-xhavli56@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20210721111629.2e03cadd@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: From: Ajit Khaparde Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:52:29 -0700 Message-ID: To: Ori Kam Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Martin Havlik , NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon , Andrew Rybchenko , Ferruh Yigit , Dekel Peled , Bing Zhao , Gregory Etelson , Eli Britstein , Alexander Kozyrev , dpdk-dev , Jan Viktorin Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="000000000000fb185305c807e7f2" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] doc: specify RTE flow create behaviour 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" --000000000000fb185305c807e7f2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:46 PM Ori Kam wrote: > > Hi > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ajit Khaparde > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 6:07 AM > > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:16 AM Stephen Hemminger > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:58:14 +0200 > > > Martin Havlik wrote: > > > > > > > The ability to create RTE flow rules, depending on > > > > port status, can and does differ between PMDs. > > > > Now the doc reflects that. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Havlik > > > > --- > > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 4 ++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > index 2b42d5ec8c..2988e3328a 100644 > > > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > @@ -3097,6 +3097,10 @@ actually created and a handle returned. > > > > const struct rte_flow_action *actions[], > > > > struct rte_flow_error *error); > > > > > > > > +The ability to create a flow rule may depend on the status > > (started/stopped) > > > > +of the port for which the rule is being created. This behaviour is > > > > +PMD specific. Seek relevant PMD documentation for details. > > > > > > Any PMD specific behavior in DPDK is an anathema to application > > developers > > > and should be considered a design flaw! > > But it is better to be clear about the behavior. > > Drivers and their underlying devices may need certain resources to be > > initialized before flows could be created. There may be some drivers > > who do not need that. > > Specifying ports to be started would cover both the cases. > > > > Maybe then we can say that "some drivers may _not_ need the port to be > > started. Check PMD specific documentation". > > I don't like the negative approach, if a driver doesn't have any issues with something > it doesn't need to say it support this, the driver may say if it wants to emphasize > but this shouldn't be the default. > I prefer the original suggestion, maybe we can add device cap for this, just like > if a the PMD allows modifying queues after start. +1. Device cap should help tie this behavior. > > Best > Ori > --000000000000fb185305c807e7f2--