Re: using rte_flow via tespmd with Intel X552

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:57:34AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:

On 8/2/2017 2:41 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:

quoted

Hi Wenzhuo,

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 01:00:47PM +0000, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:

quoted

Hi,

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhao1, Wei
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 3:28 AM
To: TETSURO NAKAMURA <redacted>
Cc: TAKADA Naoki <redacted>; Satoshi NISHIYAMA
[off-list ref]; Lu, Wenzhuo [off-list ref];
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: using rte_flow via tespmd with Intel X552

Hi, NAKAMURA

I have upload 2 documents about command format when creating flow for
NIC igb and ixgbe in the email attachment.
I have decided to commit the context in the doc to doc\guides\nics\ixgbe.rst
before, BUT by now it seems the content of the document is too much To
store there. So, is there any other doc more suitable in DPDK to record this.
And welcome for any other suggestion.
AND, Wenzhuo, what is your opinion for this?

I also have the same feeling that it may make the ixgbe.rst too big. 
+ John and Adrien. Hi John,  Adrien, I'm think about creating a specific doc for rte flow, we can include the examples for every NIC here. Is it good? If so, where's the good place to put it? Thanks.

Depends on the kind of examples. Code samples or testpmd flow command?
Unless you mean a document that describes individual rte_flow features
supported by each NIC?

Code samples could be added to a new "Programming flow rules" (or something)
section in doc/guide/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst.

Another section about NICs could be added in that documentation as well but
should only contain a short summary for each of them and a link to the
relevant PMD documentation in nics/$PMD.rst (or elsewhere in the DPDK
tree), if any.

If you want to describe individual rte_flow features supported by each NIC,
I think there's no other choice but to create a bunch of
doc/guides/nics/features/rte_flow/*.ini files.

Indeed I was thinking doing a change in .ini files related rte flow in 17.11

rte_flow is a method to implement some filtering features, rte_flow
itself is not a device feature. And filtering features already listed in
.ini file.

So I was thinking removing rte_flow from feature table, and update
existing filter features as something like:
"Ethertype filter = L"  --> Feature exist and implemented using Legacy
method.
"Ethertype filter = Y"  --> Feature exist and implemented using rte flow

Does it make sense?

Yes, I'm fine with that. Detailed information about rte_flow support can be
added later to the relevant PMD documentation if necessary then.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND