RE: [PATCH] doc: update match with compare result item limitation

[Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>]

@Suanming Mou, could you please reword the description as Stephen suggested and send a new version?
Hi, @Stephen Hemminger, PSB. Rule should be item, that would be more accurate.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 2:29 AM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam
> <orika@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: update match with compare result item limitation
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 09:47:36 +0800
> Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > +  - In switch mode, when ``repr_matching_en`` flag is enabled in the
> devarg,
> > +    the match with compare result item is not supported to the
> ``ingress``
> > +    rule as an implicit REPRESENTED_PORT need to be added to the
> matcher.
> > +    That REPRESENTED_PORT item conflicts with the single item
> limitation for
> > +    match with compare result item.
> 
> These sentences are hard to read, the wording is very awkward.
> 
> Have no detailed insight into the mlx5 matching but maybe this wording:
> 
> In switch mode, when the ``repr_matching_en`` flag is used then matching
is used (by default)
> with ingress comparison is not supported because an implicit rule is
Implicit rule -> implicit item
> required to match the REPRESENTED_PORT. And that implicit rule would
Match the REPxxxx with the same rule
Rule-> item 
> conflict with the ingress compare rule.
Comparison item.