Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce change in ETH item struct

[Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>]

On 8/4/20 7:01 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> Struct rte_flow_item_eth will be modified to include additional
> values, indicating existence or absence of VLAN headers following
> the ETH header, as proposed in RFC
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177349.html.
> Because of ABI break this change is proposed for 20.11.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index 5201142..6241709 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -115,6 +115,11 @@ Deprecation Notices
>    following the IPv6 header, as proposed in RFC
>    https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177257.html.
>  
> +* ethdev: The ``struct rte_flow_item_eth`` struct will be modified to include
> +  additional values, indicating existence or absence of VLAN headers
> +  following the ETH header, as proposed in RFC
> +  https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177349.html.

It is unclear how it will coexist with VLAN items in a pattern.
Are you going to add consistency checks on ethdev-layer?

Also it is unclear why both bit fields and a number are
required.

Referenced RFC lacks definition of S-VLAN anc C-VLAN in
the context. Exact definition to avoid ambiguity.

So, it looks required to modify the structure, but I'd
not stick to referenced RFC, since the result could
differ a lot. May be reference it as just an example.