Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] doc: specify RTE flow create behaviour

[Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2392 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:46 PM Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 6:07 AM
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:16 AM Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:58:14 +0200
> > > Martin Havlik <xhavli56@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The ability to create RTE flow rules, depending on
> > > > port status, can and does differ between PMDs.
> > > > Now the doc reflects that.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Havlik <xhavli56@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
> > > > ---
> > > >  doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 4 ++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > > index 2b42d5ec8c..2988e3328a 100644
> > > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > > @@ -3097,6 +3097,10 @@ actually created and a handle returned.
> > > >                     const struct rte_flow_action *actions[],
> > > >                     struct rte_flow_error *error);
> > > >
> > > > +The ability to create a flow rule may depend on the status
> > (started/stopped)
> > > > +of the port for which the rule is being created. This behaviour is
> > > > +PMD specific. Seek relevant PMD documentation for details.
> > >
> > > Any PMD specific behavior in DPDK is an anathema to application
> > developers
> > > and should be considered a design flaw!
> > But it is better to be clear about the behavior.
> > Drivers and their underlying devices may need certain resources to be
> > initialized before flows could be created. There may be some drivers
> > who do not need that.
> > Specifying ports to be started would cover both the cases.
> >
> > Maybe then we can say that "some drivers may _not_ need the port to be
> > started. Check PMD specific documentation".
>
> I don't like the negative approach, if a driver doesn't have any issues with something
> it doesn't need to say it support this, the driver may say if it wants to emphasize
> but this shouldn't be the default.
> I prefer the original suggestion, maybe we can add device cap for this, just like
> if a the PMD allows modifying queues after start.
+1.
Device cap should help tie this behavior.

>
> Best
> Ori
>