From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B615C29D6 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 02:31:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,459,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="188800113" Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx153.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.6) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by FMSMSX153.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:31:07 -0800 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.139]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:31:05 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: Adrien Mazarguil CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Zhao1, Wei" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API Thread-Index: AQHSNPopVQki6+wlLUC5xGYOrMgKXKDOU8iw Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:31:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160705181646.GO7621@6wind.com> <20160929171053.GP17252@6wind.com> <20161102111303.GB5733@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <20161102111303.GB5733@6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 01:31:10 -0000 Hi Adrien Any update on the v1 APIs? We are struggling on that, as we need that for o= ur development. May I bring another idea to remove the blocking? Can we send out the APIs with PMD changes based on our understaning of the = RFC we discussed recenlty on community? Then you can just update any modifi= cation on top of it, or ask the submittors to change with your review comme= nts? Any comments on this idea? If not, then we may go this way. I guess this mi= ght be the most efficient way. Thank you very much! Regards, Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:13 PM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon; Lu, Wenzhuo > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classifi= cation > API >=20 > Hi Helin, >=20 > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:19:18AM +0000, Zhang, Helin wrote: > > Hi Adrien > > > > Just a double check, do you have any update on the v1 patch set, as now= it > is the end of October? > > We are extremly eager to see the v1 patch set for development. > > I don't think we need full validation on the v1 patch set for API. It s= hould be > together with PMD and example application. > > If we can see the v1 API patch set earlier, we can help to validate it = with > our code changes. That's should be more efficient and helpful. > > Any comments on my personal understanding? > > > > Thank you very much for the hard work and kind helps! >=20 > I intend to send it shortly, likely this week. For the record, a large pa= rt of this > task was also dedicated to implement it on the client side (I've just rea= d Wei's > RFC for a client-side application to which I will reply separately), in o= rder to > validate it from a usability standpoint that led me to make a few necessa= ry > adjustments to the API. >=20 > My next submission will include both the updated API with several changes > discussed on this ML and testpmd code (not a separate application) that u= ses > it. Just hang on a bit longer! >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien > > > Mazarguil > > > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:11 AM > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow > > > director/filtering/classification API > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:50:44PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Thanks to many for the positive and constructive feedback I've > > > > received so far. Here is the updated specification (v0.7) at last. > > > > > > > > I've attempted to address as many comments as possible but could > > > > not process them all just yet. A new section "Future evolutions" > > > > has been added for the remaining topics. > > > > > > > > This series adds rte_flow.h to the DPDK tree. Next time I will > > > > attempt to convert the specification as a documentation commit > > > > part of the patchset and actually implement API functions. > > > [...] > > > > > > A quick update, we initially targeted 16.11 as the DPDK release this > > > API would be available for, turns out this goal was somewhat too > > > optimistic as September is ending and we are about to overshoot the > > > deadline for integration (basically everything took longer than expec= ted, > big surprise). > > > > > > So instead of rushing things now to include a botched API in 16.11 > > > with no PMD support, we simply modified the target, now set to > > > 17.02. On the plus side this should leave developers more time to > > > refine and test the API before applications and PMDs start to use it. > > > > > > I intend to send the patchset for the first non-draft version > > > mid-October worst case (ASAP in fact). I still haven't replied to > > > several comments but did take them into account, thanks for your > feedback. > > > > > > -- > > > Adrien Mazarguil > > > 6WIND >=20 > -- > Adrien Mazarguil > 6WIND