Re: [RFC PATCH] ethdev: advertise flow restore in mbuf

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:44 PM David Marchand
<david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 6:00 PM Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > As reported by Ilya [1], unconditionally calling
> > > rte_flow_get_restore_info() impacts an application performance for drivers
> > > that do not provide this ops.
> > > It could also impact processing of packets that require no call to
> > > rte_flow_get_restore_info() at all.
> > >
> > > Advertise in mbuf (via a dynamic flag) whether the driver has more
> > > metadata to provide via rte_flow_get_restore_info().
> > > The application can then call it only when required.
> > >
> > > Link: http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/5248c2ca-f2a6-3fb0-38b8-
> > > 7f659bfa40de@ovn.org/
> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > Note: I did not test this RFC patch yet but I hope we can resume and
> > > maybe conclude on the discussion for the tunnel offloading API.
> > >
> >
> > I think your approach has a good base but what happens if
> > it is not relevant for all flows? In this case your solution will not work.
>
> Sorry, I am not following.
> Could you develop?

I still don't get your comment, could you give an example/usecase
where this approach can't work?
Thanks.


-- 
David Marchand