From: John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
To: adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com
Cc: thomas.monjalon@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org, John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/1] fix flow validate comments
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170406224126.30345-1-johndale@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170324023659.28099-2-johndale@cisco.com>
Adrien,
Here is another crack at the comments for rte_flow_validate. Does this
capture what you were explaining to me?
I'm still not crazy about multiple meanings for EEXIST or ENOMEM since
it makes them unusable by apps, but at least the comments try to explain it. In 17.08 what about having PMDs indicate if they support flow
collision and resouce checking, or drop those return codes all together?
cheers,
john
John Daley (1):
ethdev: fix flow validate comments
lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h | 17 ++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--
2.12.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-24 2:36 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics John Daley
2017-03-24 2:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] ethdev: don't consider device state when validating flows John Daley
2017-04-06 20:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-04-06 22:41 ` John Daley [this message]
2017-04-06 22:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] ethdev: fix flow validate comments John Daley
2017-04-07 0:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " John Daley
2017-04-11 10:01 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-04-20 18:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: " John Daley
2017-04-21 8:11 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-04-21 8:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-03-24 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics Adrien Mazarguil
2017-03-24 17:23 ` John Daley (johndale)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170406224126.30345-1-johndale@cisco.com \
--to=johndale@cisco.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).