Re: [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

["Zhao1, Wei" <wei.zhao1@intel.com>]

Hi  Adrien Mazarguil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:21 PM
> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification
> API
> 
> Hi Wei,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:47:53AM +0000, Zhao1, Wei wrote:
> > Hi  Adrien Mazarguil,
> >      There is a struct rte_flow_action_rss in rte_flow.txt, the  member
> rss_conf is a pointer type, is there any convenience in using pointer?
> > Why not using  struct rte_eth_rss_conf rss_conf type, as
> rte_flow_item_ipv4/ rte_flow_item_ipv6 struct member?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >  struct rte_flow_action_rss {
> > 	struct rte_eth_rss_conf *rss_conf; /**< RSS parameters. */
> > 	uint16_t queues; /**< Number of entries in queue[]. */
> > 	uint16_t queue[]; /**< Queues indices to use. */ };
> 
> Well I thought it made sharing flow RSS configuration with its counterpart in
> struct rte_eth_conf easier (this pointer should even be const). Also, while
> ABI breakage would still occur if rte_eth_rss_conf happened to be modified,
> the impact on this API would be limited as it would not cause a change in
> structure size. We'd ideally need some kind of version field to be completely
> safe but I guess that would be somewhat overkill.
> 
> Now considering this API was written without an initial implementation, all
> structure definitions that do not make sense are still open to debate, we can
> adjust them as needed.
> 
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND

Your explanation seems very reasonable for me, structure pointer is an very experienced usage in this situation.
Thank you!