Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: remove flow API from the feature list

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 4/10/2020 10:20 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 10/04/2020 11:04, Jerin Jacob:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:26 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>> 10/04/2020 10:44, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>> On 10/25/2019 2:39 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:56 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 25/10/2019 14:51, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>>> "Flow API" is a method/API to implement various filtering features, on
>>>>>>> its own it doesn't give much context on what features are provided. And
>>>>>>> it is not really a feature, so doesn't fit into feature table.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also since other filtering related APIs, 'filter_ctrl', has been
>>>>>>> deprecated, flow API is the only supported way in the DPDK to implement
>>>>>>> filtering options, if related filter options announced by PMDs, listing
>>>>>>> "Flow API" as implemented is redundant information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fully agree with this explanation.
>>>>>> rte_flow is the only supported API for flow offloads.
>>>>>> That's why we must remove the legacy API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini
>>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini
>>>>>>> -Flow API             =
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> # Need to remove "Flow API" from doc/guides/nics/features.rst
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> # Need to remove refference of "Flow API" from "doc/guides/nics/*" as well.
>>>>
>>>> "Flow API" is the implementation of the filtering, it may exist in the nic
>>>> documentation, only it is not a feature on itself. I will scan the docs for usage.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not specific to this patch,
>>>>> Probably we need to add a new matrix to enumerate PATTERN and ACTIONS
>>>>> supported by each PMD as a rte_flow feature matrix.
>>>>> That some else can take it up if everyone agrees the semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1, there needs a way to figure out which filtering is supported by a
>>>> device/driver. It is not documented and it is very hard to got it from the code.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if a new matrix is the good way to go, but I agree we need some way to
>>>> clarify it.
>>>
>>> I think we should split the matrix.
>>> Adding a new matrix for flow offloads looks the way to go.
>>> I suggest 3 matrices:
>>>         - port-level features
>>>         - queue-level features
>>>         - flow-level features
>>
>> Not sure what will be the details in "flow-level features".
>>
>> IMO, We need to have a separate matrix for subdomain features for
>> rte_flow, rte_tm, rte_mtr, etc which part of ethdev.
>> For instance, rte_flow features can be translated into a matrix of
>> supported PATTERN and ACTIONS.
> 
> Yes I'm also fine with this proposal.
> 

My concern is it will be too big and detailed, also hard to maintain which means
it will be out dated a while later.

After above said, I don't have a better solution right now ...