[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter
yong.liu at intel.com
Fri Jan 20 03:18:35 CET 2017
Wenzhou, thanks for note.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> Cc: Liu, Yong <yong.liu at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud filter
> Hi Adrien, Thomas, Yong,
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Adrien Mazarguil
> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:46 AM
> > To: Thomas Monjalon
> > Cc: Liu, Yong; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cloud
> > filter
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:06:34AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2017-01-19 13:34, Yong Liu:
> > > > +* ABI changes are planned for 17.05: structure
> > > > +``rte_eth_tunnel_filter_conf``
> > > > + will be extended with a new member ``vf_id`` in order to enable
> > > > +cloud filter
> > > > + on VF device.
> > >
> > > I think we should stop rely on this API, and migrate to rte_flow instead.
> > > Adrien any thought?
> > I'm all for using rte_flow in any case. I've already documented an
> > approach to convert TUNNEL filter rules to rte_flow rules ,
> > although it may be incomplete due to my limited experience with this
> > filter type. We already know several tunnel item types must be added
> > (currently only VXLAN is defined).
> > I understand ixgbe/i40e currently map rte_flow on top of the legacy
> > framework, therefore extending this structure might still be needed in
> > the meantime. Not sure we should prevent this change as long as such
> > rules can be configured through rte_flow as well.
> > 
> > http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#tunnel-to-eth-ipv4
> > -
> > ipv6-vxlan-or-other-queue
> The problem is we haven't finished transferring all the functions from the regular
> filters to the generic filters.
> For example, igb, fm10k and enic haven't support generic filters yet. Ixgbe and
> i40e have supported the basic functions, but some advance features are not
> transferred to generic filters yet.
> Seems it's not the time to remove the regular filters. Yong, I suggest to support
> both generic filter and regular filter in parallel.
> So, we need to announce ABI change for the regular filter, until someday we
> remove the regular filter API.
I will enable VF support both in generic filter and original cloud filter API.
So I think we still need ABI announcement for structure modification.
> > --
> > Adrien Mazarguil
> > 6WIND
More information about the dev