DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Asaf Penso <asafp@nvidia.com>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org, "Gal Cohen (ProdM)" <galco@nvidia.com>,
	Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	rasland@nvidia.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: add new tables for rte flow items and actions support
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:07:10 +0200
Message-ID: <1765424.M8NlyeqTKT@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <89ed919a-f45d-3c74-ad62-5402056a612b@intel.com>

18/02/2021 19:45, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 2/18/2021 5:58 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:49 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >> 17/02/2021 11:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>> On 2/17/2021 5:57 AM, Asaf Penso wrote:
> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >>>>> On 2/7/2021 10:52 AM, Asaf Penso wrote:
> >>>>>> The following new tables are suggested:
> >>>>>> 1. rte_flow items
> >>>>>> 2. rte_flow actions
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Asaf,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I understand the intention, but I am not sure about this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Flow API does not provide a capability or feature list in the API
> >>>>> level, by
> >>>>> design, because it is very hard to do it correct, but this patch
> >>>>> tries to do it in the
> >>>>> documentation level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This will be missing lots of details, the flow items and actions
> >>>>> documented as
> >>>>> supported may and may not be supported based on the details.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Which missing details are you referring to? All flow items and all
> >>>> actions are listed.
> >>>
> >>> Patterns are complex, any rule can be valid or invalid based on provided
> >>> pattern
> >>> values (details), also any rule can be valid or invalid based on
> >>> previous rules
> >>> or configuration.
> >>>
> >>> In practice this information is much more useful if it is provided by
> >>> API, but
> >>> we are not able to do it because of its complex nature, it should be
> >>> same level
> >>> of complexity to provide this information by documentation.
> >>>
> >>>>> It will be very hard to read this table (when it becomes full), also
> >>>>> will be very hard to maintain.
> >>>>
> >>>> As part of any documentation change in rte_flow the developer would
> >>>> also need to update this table.
> >>>> Why would it be very hard to maintain?
> >>>
> >>> Ahh, that sound so simple when you say like this :) In practice even
> >>> keeping
> >>> feature list requiring lots of effort, developers are
> >>> missing/neglecting/ignoring updating documentation when updating the
> >>> code.
> >>>
> >>> And for this case is partially correct table a useful information? If
> >>> this is
> >>> not completely correct people won't rely on it and it will become just
> >>> useless.
> >>> So this feature should come with an automated way to detect if a rule
> >>> supported
> >>> but not documented, or even better this table should be generated from
> >>> code automatically.
> >>>
> >>>>> Let me start with a question, who do you think will be your consumer?
> >>>>> Who will benefit from this table and how?
> >>>>
> >>>> We get a lot of questions from users regarding rte_flow support and we
> >>>> do not have a single place with proper documentation.
> >>>> I can ask the same about the overall feature table, right? There is a
> >>>> value to document the support.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Let's discuss the feature table separately, I think that is a valid
> >>> question.
> >>>
> >>> For the rte_flow, who is asking questions? End user, or application
> >>> developer?
> >>> So is this intended to be a marketing documentation or technical
> >>> documentation?
> >>>
> >>> And what is the nature of the questions, if it is related to the
> >>> rte_flow, there
> >>> is already a proper documentation for it:
> >>> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html
> >>>
> >>> If this question is if any specific rule supported by a specific PMD,
> >>> right now
> >>> only valid way to say this that I am aware of is, run
> >>> 'rte_flow_validate()' and see.
> >>> Not sure if we can document this properly.
> >>
> >> I think in general we are missing a big disclaimer
> >> on top of this overview page:
> >>          Each feature may have some hardware limitations.
> >>
> >> Then there is a need, both for application developers and end-users,
> >> to know which feature can be supported by a PMD,
> >> or which PMD can support a feature.
> >> Yes there are complex limitations with hardware offloads in general.
> >> Yes it would be nice to report some tested capabilities with a CI.
> >> But it does not mean we should not try to document it in my opinion.
> >>
> > +1 to all of these.
> > A document like this will help give an idea on what is possible with the
> > PMD without looking at the code. Beyond that, the user can check with
> > the vendor/developer for specific details if needed.
> 
> I am still feeling we are trying to workaround flow API design constrain with 
> documentation, although we know it won't be complete.

I disagree, it is not a workaround.
API is for application to work with any hardware.
Doc is for users to imagine which feature they could use
in which config (HW, DPDK version, etc).

> And not really clear who will benefit from this in what way.

End users will be the main users of this doc,
but it will help a lot more people to track what is implemented.

> Anyway, as mentioned above I am concerned the maintenance cost, can this series 
> investigate:
> 1) A way to automatically fill the table from source code

I am looking at it.

> 2) A way to check if a patch is adding a new flow support but not documenting it

Looking into it as well.

> Also can you please propose a maintainer for it (can be documented in MAINTAINER 
> file) who will be responsible of the correctness of the table, which means:
> - Will verify a claimed support by a PMD is really supported
> - All flow API features are documented for a PMD
> - Changes in the code are reflected to the documentation
> - Trace PMD maintainers for missing data

I'm not sure we should have a maintainer for this single file.
With the help of checkpatch script, the responsibility can be shared
in the next-net trees, isn't it?





  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-06 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-04 17:05 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Asaf Penso
2021-02-04 22:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-02-07  8:46   ` Asaf Penso
2021-02-07  9:44     ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-02-07  9:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Asaf Penso
2021-02-07 10:46   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Asaf Penso
2021-02-07 10:52     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Asaf Penso
2021-02-08 12:58       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-02-16 13:13       ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-02-17  5:57         ` Asaf Penso
2021-02-17 10:37           ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-02-17 10:49             ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-02-18 16:12               ` Asaf Penso
2021-02-18 17:58               ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-02-18 18:45                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-06 15:07                   ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-04-07 22:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] rte_flow doc matrix Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-07 22:33   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] doc: rename sfc features file Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-07 22:33   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] doc: add flow API features tables Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-08  8:45     ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda
2021-05-14 10:42     ` [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-05-14 11:52       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-07 22:33   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] devtools: check flow API doc tables Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-13 18:40     ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-05-18 12:46       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-14 10:51     ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-05-18 10:33       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-18 13:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] rte_flow doc matrix Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-18 13:28   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/3] doc: rename sfc features file Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-18 13:28   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/3] doc: add flow API features tables Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-18 13:28   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/3] devtools: check flow API doc tables Thomas Monjalon
2021-05-18 16:54   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] rte_flow doc matrix Thomas Monjalon

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=1765424.M8NlyeqTKT@thomas \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=asafp@nvidia.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=galco@nvidia.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=rasland@nvidia.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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git