On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:48 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 06/04/2021 11:07, Bing Zhao:
> > Hi Thomas and Andrew,
> >
> > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
> > > On 3/17/21 11:28 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 17/03/2021 08:59, Bing Zhao:
> > > >> The new functions rte_flow_action_ctx* that were added will
> > > replace
> > > >> the curret shared functions rte_flow_shared_action_*.
> > > >>   - rte_flow_shared_action_create
> > > >>   - rte_flow_shared_action_destroy
> > > >>   - rte_flow_shared_action_update
> > > >>   - rte_flow_shared_action_query
> > > >>   + rte_flow_action_ctx_create
> > > >>   + rte_flow_action_ctx_destroy
> > > >>   + rte_flow_action_ctx_update
> > > >>   + rte_flow_action_ctx_query
> > > >>
> > > >> When creating a action context, it could be shared among
> > > different
> > > >> flows or different ports. Or it could also be used by a single
> > > flow.
> > > >> The name "shared" is improper in a sense.
> > > >
> > > > Is it the only reason for the change?
> > > > I better understand "shared" even if it is sometimes not shared.
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > In another email, I explained the change a bit more. Please check and give comments, thank you all.
>
> Any link to this email from inbox.dpdk.org?

I don't see the RFC/patch even on patchwork or inbox.
Can you send a link to the mail/patch which initiated the discussion?

>
> Please explain here the naming reason.
>
>