From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] Generic flow API (rte_flow) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:39:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20161201083946.GJ10340@6wind.com> References: <188971FCDA171749BED5DA74ABF3E6F03946BD34@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , Olivier Matz , "Xing, Beilei" To: "Pei, Yulong" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B29158C5 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:39:55 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a197so291274231wmd.0 for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:39:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <188971FCDA171749BED5DA74ABF3E6F03946BD34@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Yulong, On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:03:53AM +0000, Pei, Yulong wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > I think that you already did test for your patchset, do you have any automated test scripts can be shared for validation since there did not have testpmd flow command documentation yet? No automated script, at least not yet. I intend to submit v2 with extra API documentation, testpmd commands with examples of expected behavior and output, as well as fixes for the issues pointed out by Nelio. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND