Re: [RFC v2 1/2] ethdev: port flags for pre-configuration flow hints

[Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>]

Summary must not be a statement. May be:
ethdev: add strict queue to pre-configuration flow hints

On 6/1/22 10:39, Xiaoyu Min wrote:
> The data-path focused flow rule management can manage flow rules in more
> optimized way than traditional one by using hints provided by
> application in initialization phase.
> 
> In addition to the current hints we have in port attr, more hints could
> be provided by application about its behaviour.
> 
> One example is how the application do with the same flow rule ?
> A. create/destroy flow on same queue but query flow on different queue
>     or queue-less way (i.e, counter query)
> B. All flow operations will be exactly on the same queue, by which PMD
>     could be in more optimized way then A because resource could be
>     isolated and access based on queue, without lock, for example.
> 
> This patch add flag about above situation and could be extended to cover
> more situations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
> ---
>   lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 11 +++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> index d8827dd184..38439fcd1d 100644
> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -4948,6 +4948,12 @@ rte_flow_info_get(uint16_t port_id,
>   		  struct rte_flow_queue_info *queue_info,
>   		  struct rte_flow_error *error);
>   
> +/**
> + * Indicate all operations for a given flow rule will _strictly_ happen
> + * on the same queue (create/destroy/query/update).
> + */
> +#define RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_STRICT_QUEUE RTE_BIT32(0)
> +
>   /**
>    * @warning
>    * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice.
> @@ -4972,6 +4978,11 @@ struct rte_flow_port_attr {
>   	 * @see RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_METER
>   	 */
>   	uint32_t nb_meters;
> +	/**
> +	 * Port flags.
> +	 * @see RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_STRICT_QUEUE

I'm not sure that it is a good idea to list flags here.
If so, it will be required to add all future flags here.
So, may be just "Port flags (RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_*)"

> +	 */
> +	uint32_t flags;
>   };
>   
>   /**