From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022DCA04DD; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:05:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A93A876; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:05:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B148BA549 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:05:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.65.61]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 127D4601C2; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us4-mdac16-65.ut7.mdlocal (unknown [10.7.66.64]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id EC094800CD; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:05:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.66.37]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 5B6EA80083; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 9AAE1B40081; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:05:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.27] (10.17.10.39) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:34 +0100 To: "Guo, Jia" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Xing, Beilei" , "Iremonger, Bernard" , Ray Kinsella , Neil Horman , Rasesh Mody , Shahed Shaikh , Andrew Rybchenko , Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1603030152-13451-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <1603030152-13451-2-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> From: Andrew Rybchenko Message-ID: <9e406d6b-3f7d-105e-79a1-b3a27485c517@solarflare.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 19:05:24 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.17.10.39] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.6.1012-25738.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No-3.362700-8.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 9zTThWtzImvmLzc6AOD8DfHkpkyUphL9Ud7Bjfo+5jTVEYfep7SzppWi xnDxF7NQtqy4fGtVdQqTH1CW/Tkdqoaw96TXEsdWRFakFvQb7akiJN3aXuV/oTbpMgyAfh26hzt OxglWz4AQZ/rZmL1xs2E87yPdq69S5/PHRWHr9ZYAjRSlC8Rgmffjx7YIT/BiUQ+YXiZ8bisq+q slEFLe8+LzNWBegCW2RYvisGWbbS+No+PRbWqfRK6NVEWSRWybGtNmmOsQ2OOjU2hxZuFmX7Bak AeQW9LvZoIkLWkclsgxWNfT+FbGddAZ+xpOVKfLAb7Bc2zwUUQTudxJ7ZV84fxui3xTWl39hXIC XPkDTMLvGyaLyWJvBWLqcdF40kDywzhVZiqhieGz597RaJ+lCg== X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--3.362700-8.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.6.1012-25738.003 X-MDID: 1603296349-JdPHT3FjmNW1 X-PPE-DISP: 1603296349;JdPHT3FjmNW1 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/14] ethdev: remove legacy MACVLAN filter type support 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/21/20 6:31 AM, Guo, Jia wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Rybchenko >> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 10:09 PM >> To: Lu, Wenzhuo ; Xing, Beilei >> ; Iremonger, Bernard >> ; Ray Kinsella ; Neil >> Horman ; Guo, Jia ; Rasesh >> Mody ; Shahed Shaikh ; >> Andrew Rybchenko ; Thomas Monjalon >> ; Yigit, Ferruh >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: [PATCH 01/14] ethdev: remove legacy MACVLAN filter type support >> >> RTE flow API should be used for filtering. > > Look like each patch in the patch set remove one specific legacy filter, so I think the removing > filter info is need to show in the commit log to make it more clear, please add in the next version. Sorry, don't understand. Isn't MACVLAN in summary sufficient?