From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mbuf: new flag when Vlan is stripped
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:34:32 +0200
Message-ID: <575FCFA8.7030704@6wind.com>
References: <1463993205-5623-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <1464359593-3534-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B70190@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <575EDA24.3020405@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B703CC@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <575FC133.3090205@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B707E8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "johndale@cisco.com" <johndale@cisco.com>,
 "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
 "adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com" <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 "rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com" <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
 "alejandro.lucero@netronome.com" <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>,
 "sony.chacko@qlogic.com" <sony.chacko@qlogic.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from proxy.6wind.com (host.76.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com
 [62.23.145.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756C26C9F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:34:32 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B707E8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>



On 06/14/2016 11:15 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>> If we decide to generalize the ixgbe behavior for all PMDs for this
>>>> flag, it will break the applications relying on this flag but with
>>>> other PMDs. So for the same reason we added a new PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED
>>>> we cannot change the behavior of an existing flag.
>>>
>>> Ok, then let's make PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED == PKT_RX_VLAN,
>>> and assign new value to the  PKT_RX_VLAN.
>>> Or have PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED == PKT_RX_VLAN and create a new one:
>>> PKT_RX_VLAN_PRESENT or so.
>>> ?
>>>
>>
>> I think adding this new flag/packet_type is a new feature,
>> because only ixgbe was behaving like this, and this was not
>> documented. To me, marking the old flag as deprecated is
>> a good compromise to keep the application relying on this
>> working. If you feel the term "deprecated" is not adapted,
>> we could reword it to something weaker.
>
> Yes, that would do I think.
> Basically my only concern that we will mark it as deprecated,
> and then will remove it (as it is deprecated), without providing
> anything new to replace it.
>
>>
>> We should try to not stay in that state too long,
>
> Agree.
>
>> and anybody willing to implement this feature would be welcome. For my
>> part, this is not something I plan to do yet.
>>
>
> Ok, we'll see what we can do for 16.11.
> But no hard promises right now either :)

Great, thanks :)
I'll send an update of the patch taking your comments in
account.

Olivier