From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAC71B806 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:39:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2BF20C05; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 11:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 09 Feb 2018 11:39:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=xMETDrLjsNY/f4j0r0hZ46qsWH g4lW39rENmStl55a0=; b=NGuR8exOsKip6quxWZ00vfKJwqnBMkEOVBEoYUOWYP L9LaCOL8ulQSRUwurUKSEVweTZElGIuKi/EPQssvbmKg375iW+l4O7DAFLQnmvfi 191VwivLFIRffrqDfdoEyaphNMVMMESlURhhRNRx0rzP4NAZwcLakPdJt4qaYtOP 8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=xMETDr LjsNY/f4j0r0hZ46qsWHg4lW39rENmStl55a0=; b=HnrDI+qo4ufrB/KcgcCFXk VAB5zFETaJNxI0j95idbuRXR/tQCB/Pe7h2yQqItafSciQXBCrZQj3Zyqxhqo3E4 KLrj2tTfgiPwnv/PNX5IkDX9Zz0kk02AVy4frLc+p0DeF7xgvkOf42JXhz3DP3dI 4Iti+ExzZoNX3eMzv0bz1lXkNHnLCv2GXNbWMl74rUUlE/wQcif/V4kj3WjEweKt 60DoTvUfLGNqMZKPKXk7eIrm3qG/Doa5R/xZcYb8I7Gyc030gvkDUTMhXYxAcQuL 8qyl45Fcnk1fGgJfUGoq8ou797QNQZXLGZpSIjOqcNpHiXepskHUHsNVfT+gZm3A == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BF66A7E3E0; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 11:39:57 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Adrien Mazarguil Cc: Ophir Munk , dev@dpdk.org, Moti Haimovsky , Olga Shern , Matan Azrad , ferruh.yigit@intel.com Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 17:39:50 +0100 Message-ID: <1944833.dayHpbUbTZ@xps> In-Reply-To: <20180209162124.GD4256@6wind.com> References: <1518072954-19082-1-git-send-email-ophirmu@mellanox.com> <20180209162124.GD4256@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: update mlx4 flow limitations X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:39:59 -0000 09/02/2018 17:21, Adrien Mazarguil: > This section is titled "Limitations" but contains a mix of features, > limitations and quirks, more like "Random thoughts regarding rte_flow > support". I think this is not what users might expect from such a > documentation which must be exhaustive and consistent. Getting there may > involve tables. +Cc Ferruh > My suggestion is to first get everyone agree on a common rte_flow > capabilities documentation format all PMDs could reuse and then fill in the > blanks. What's your opinion? I think it's better to have some random thoughts than nothing. All the comments you gave in this thread deserve to be written in the documentation as soon as possible. Working on a better standardized documentation (longer term) should not prevent us to write some messy notes in the meantime. Is there already some similar rte_flow notes in other PMD docs? About the common documentation, do you think about a generated table like it is done for other features? Do you plan to provide a template or an example?