Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 0/1] add flow action context API

[Andrey Vesnovaty <andrey.vesnovaty@gmail.com>]

Hi

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:44 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 7:02 PM Andrey Vesnovaty
> <andrey.vesnovaty@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, and thanks a lot for your RFC v1 comments.
> >
> > RFC v2 emphasize the intent for sharing the flow action:
> > * The term 'action context' was unclear and replaced with
> >    'shared action'.
> > * RFC v2 subject became 'add flow shared action API'.
> > * all proposed APIs renamed according the above.
> >
> > The new shared action is an independent entity decoupled from any flow
> > while any flow can reuse such an action. Please go over the RFC
> > description, it was almost entirely rewritten.
> >
> > @Jerin Jacob:
> > Thanks again for your comments, it made me admit that v1 description was
> > incomplete & unclear.  I hope v2 will be better at least in terms of
> > clarity.
>
> The public API and its usage is very clear. Thanks for this RFC.


My pleasure.

>
> I think, RFC v2 still not addressing the concern raised in the
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-June/169296.html.
>
> Since MLX hardware has an HW based shared object it is fine to have
> public API based on that level of abstraction.
> But at the PMD driver level we need to choose the correct abstraction
> to support all PMD and support shared object scheme if possible.
>
> I purpose to introduce something below or similar
>             int (*action_update)
>                 (struct rte_eth_dev *,
>                   struct rte_flow *flow,
>                  const struct rte_flow_action [],
>                  struct rte_flow_error *);
>
Where this callback suppose to belong (struct rte_flow_ops)?
How should it be implemented by PMD?
Is it about shared action and if "yes" why there is 'flow' argument?

>
> in addition to: shared_action_create, shared_action_destroy,
> shared_action_update, shared_action_query
>
> Have generic implementation of above, if action_update callback is not
> NULL.

"is not NULL" -> "is NULL"?


> So that, it can work all PMDs and to
> avoid the duplication of "complex" shared session management code.
>
Do you mean shared action in use by multiple flows by "shared session"?