Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API

From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
To: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	Andrey Vesnovaty <andreyv@nvidia.com>,
	 NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
	 "jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, "jer@marvell.com" <jer@marvell.com>,
	 Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	 Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>,
	Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>,
	 "andrey.vesnovaty@gmail.com" <andrey.vesnovaty@gmail.com>,
	Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>,
	 Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <tmonjalon@nvidia.com>,
	 Samik Gupta <samik.gupta@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:25:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACZ4nhtQob5_pu129GFCORe=kxTV9NRKYZfRN4x7j2w-SLaWGw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR12MB4286DBE84D53C62BA5E8D87AD63E0@MN2PR12MB4286.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:03 AM Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 6:34 PM
> > <samik.gupta@broadcom.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: add flow shared action API
> >
> > On 9/16/20 10:20 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:52 AM Andrey Vesnovaty <andreyv@nvidia.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Ajit
> > >>
> > >> For shared action configuration I have following suggestion:
> > >>
> > >> struct rte_flow_shared_action_conf {
> > >>          uint32_t no_ingress: 1;
> > >>          uint32_t no_egress: 1;
> > >> };
> > >> /*...*/
> > >> rte_flow_shared_action_create(..., const struct
> > rte_flow_shared_action_conf *conf, ...);
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > > Andrey, I think this is good.
> > > Application can specify the direction and PMD can decide whether if
> > > it needs to honor it or ignore it.
> > > Please send the updated version of the patch.
> >
> > Personally I dislike negative flags, offloads, fields etc.
> > Don't we have a policy to avoid it. At least we have it for
> > offloads. I see no string reasons here to use negative
> > instead of positive here.
>
> Agree I think it is better to use positive values and the same names as the
> attribute in the flow.
Has a new version of the patch been submitted? Thanks

>