From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <helin.zhang@intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B615C29D6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  8 Nov 2016 02:31:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,459,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="188800113"
Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203])
 by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800
Received: from fmsmsx153.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.6) by
 FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800
Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by
 FMSMSX153.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:31:07 -0800
Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.139]) by
 SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002;
 Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:31:05 +0800
From: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Thomas Monjalon
 <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Zhao1,
 Wei" <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow
 director/filtering/classification API
Thread-Index: AQHSNPopVQki6+wlLUC5xGYOrMgKXKDOU8iw
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:31:05 +0000
Message-ID: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E717F493A3@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20160705181646.GO7621@6wind.com>
 <cover.1471632644.git.adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <20160929171053.GP17252@6wind.com>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E717F3D3BF@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20161102111303.GB5733@6wind.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161102111303.GB5733@6wind.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow
 director/filtering/classification API
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 01:31:10 -0000

Hi Adrien

Any update on the v1 APIs? We are struggling on that, as we need that for o=
ur development.
May I bring another idea to remove the blocking?
Can we send out the APIs with PMD changes based on our understaning of the =
RFC we discussed recenlty on community? Then you can just update any modifi=
cation on top of it, or ask the submittors to change with your review comme=
nts?
Any comments on this idea? If not, then we may go this way. I guess this mi=
ght be the most efficient way. Thank you very much!

Regards,
Helin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:13 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon; Lu, Wenzhuo
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classifi=
cation
> API
>=20
> Hi Helin,
>=20
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:19:18AM +0000, Zhang, Helin wrote:
> > Hi Adrien
> >
> > Just a double check, do you have any update on the v1 patch set, as now=
 it
> is the end of October?
> > We are extremly eager to see the v1 patch set for development.
> > I don't think we need full validation on the v1 patch set for API. It s=
hould be
> together with PMD and example application.
> > If we can see the v1 API patch set earlier, we can help to validate it =
with
> our code changes. That's should be more efficient and helpful.
> > Any comments on my personal understanding?
> >
> > Thank you very much for the hard work and kind helps!
>=20
> I intend to send it shortly, likely this week. For the record, a large pa=
rt of this
> task was also dedicated to implement it on the client side (I've just rea=
d Wei's
> RFC for a client-side application to which I will reply separately), in o=
rder to
> validate it from a usability standpoint that led me to make a few necessa=
ry
> adjustments to the API.
>=20
> My next submission will include both the updated API with several changes
> discussed on this ML and testpmd code (not a separate application) that u=
ses
> it. Just hang on a bit longer!
>=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien
> > > Mazarguil
> > > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:11 AM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow
> > > director/filtering/classification API
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:50:44PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to many for the positive and constructive feedback I've
> > > > received so far. Here is the updated specification (v0.7) at last.
> > > >
> > > > I've attempted to address as many comments as possible but could
> > > > not process them all just yet. A new section "Future evolutions"
> > > > has been added for the remaining topics.
> > > >
> > > > This series adds rte_flow.h to the DPDK tree. Next time I will
> > > > attempt to convert the specification as a documentation commit
> > > > part of the patchset and actually implement API functions.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > A quick update, we initially targeted 16.11 as the DPDK release this
> > > API would be available for, turns out this goal was somewhat too
> > > optimistic as September is ending and we are about to overshoot the
> > > deadline for integration (basically everything took longer than expec=
ted,
> big surprise).
> > >
> > > So instead of rushing things now to include a botched API in 16.11
> > > with no PMD support, we simply modified the target, now set to
> > > 17.02. On the plus side this should leave developers more time to
> > > refine and test the API before applications and PMDs start to use it.
> > >
> > > I intend to send the patchset for the first non-draft version
> > > mid-October worst case (ASAP in fact). I still haven't replied to
> > > several comments but did take them into account, thanks for your
> feedback.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Adrien Mazarguil
> > > 6WIND
>=20
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND