Hi, this is an old thread, but I'll reply to this instead of the RFC v2 since there is more context here.
Thanks for pushing the new api forward Adrien.
-john daley

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

- Match range of Physical Functions (PFs) on the NIC in a single rule
  via masks. For ex: match all traffic coming on several PFs.

The PF and VF pattern items assume there is a single PF associated
with a DPDK port. VFs are identified with an ID. I basically took
the same definitions as the existing filter types, perhaps this is
not enough for Chelsio adapters.

Do you expose more than one PF for a DPDK port?

The Cisco VIC can support multiple PFs per Ethernet port.  These are called virtual-nics (VNICs). It would be nice to be able to redirect matched Rx packets to another queue on another VNIC.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Anyway, I'd suggest the same approach as above, automatic
aggregation of rules for performance reasons, otherwise new or
updated PF/VF pattern items, in which case it would be great if you
could provide ideal structure definitions for this use case.

In Chelsio hardware, all the ports of a device are exposed via
single PF4. There could be many VFs attached to a PF.  Physical NIC
functions are operational on PF4, while VFs can be attached to PFs 0-3.
So, Chelsio hardware doesn't remain tied on a PF-to-Port, one-to-one
mapping assumption.

There already seems to be a PF meta-item, but it doesn't seem to
accept any "spec" and "mask" field.  Similarly, the VF meta-item
doesn't seem to accept a "mask" field.  We could probably enable
these fields in the PF and VF meta-items to allow configuration.

I would like to see an ID property added to the PF action meta-item, where perhaps a BDF can be specified. This would potentially allow matched Rx packets to be redirected to another VNIC and could be paired with the QUEUE action meta-item to redirect to a specific queue on a VNIC. The PF ID property set to 0 would have the current specified behavior or redirecting to the current PF. Is something like this possible?