Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: add new tables for rte flow items and actions support

On 2/18/2021 5:58 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:49 AM Thomas Monjalon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

17/02/2021 11:37, Ferruh Yigit:

quoted

On 2/17/2021 5:57 AM, Asaf Penso wrote:

quoted

From: Ferruh Yigit <redacted>

quoted

On 2/7/2021 10:52 AM, Asaf Penso wrote:

quoted

In http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/overview.html, table 1.1 lists

all

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

supported features.
It has a single line for "Flow API" that refers to rte_flow support.
rte_flow is composed of many items and actions that are not expressed
in this single line.

The following new tables are suggested:
1. rte_flow items
2. rte_flow actions

Hi Asaf,

I understand the intention, but I am not sure about this.

The Flow API does not provide a capability or feature list in the API

level, by

quoted

quoted

quoted

design, because it is very hard to do it correct, but this patch

tries to do it in the

quoted

quoted

quoted

documentation level.

This will be missing lots of details, the flow items and actions

documented as

quoted

quoted

quoted

supported may and may not be supported based on the details.

Which missing details are you referring to? All flow items and all

actions are listed.

quoted

quoted

Patterns are complex, any rule can be valid or invalid based on provided

pattern

quoted

values (details), also any rule can be valid or invalid based on

previous rules

quoted

or configuration.

In practice this information is much more useful if it is provided by

API, but

quoted

we are not able to do it because of its complex nature, it should be

same level

quoted

of complexity to provide this information by documentation.

quoted

quoted

It will be very hard to read this table (when it becomes full), also

will be very hard

quoted

quoted

quoted

to maintain.

As part of any documentation change in rte_flow the developer would

also need to update this table.

quoted

quoted

Why would it be very hard to maintain?

  >

Ahh, that sound so simple when you say like this :) In practice even

keeping

quoted

feature list requiring lots of effort, developers are
missing/neglecting/ignoring updating documentation when updating the

code.

quoted

And for this case is partially correct table a useful information? If

this is

quoted

not completely correct people won't rely on it and it will become just

useless.

quoted

So this feature should come with an automated way to detect if a rule

supported

quoted

but not documented, or even better this table should be generated from

code

quoted

automatically.

quoted

quoted

Let me start with a question, who do you think will be your consumer?
Who will benefit from this table and how?

We get a lot of questions from users regarding rte_flow support and we

do not have a single place with proper documentation.

quoted

quoted

I can ask the same about the overall feature table, right? There is a

value to document the support.

quoted

quoted

Let's discuss the feature table separately, I think that is a valid

question.

quoted

For the rte_flow, who is asking questions? End user, or application

developer?

quoted

So is this intended to be a marketing documentation or technical

documentation?

quoted

And what is the nature of the questions, if it is related to the

rte_flow, there

quoted

is already a proper documentation for it:
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html

If this question is if any specific rule supported by a specific PMD,

right now

quoted

only valid way to say this that I am aware of is, run

'rte_flow_validate()' and see.

quoted

Not sure if we can document this properly.

I think in general we are missing a big disclaimer
on top of this overview page:
         Each feature may have some hardware limitations.

Then there is a need, both for application developers and end-users,
to know which feature can be supported by a PMD,
or which PMD can support a feature.
Yes there are complex limitations with hardware offloads in general.
Yes it would be nice to report some tested capabilities with a CI.
But it does not mean we should not try to document it in my opinion.

+1 to all of these.
A document like this will help give an idea on what is possible with the
PMD without looking at the code. Beyond that, the user can check with
the vendor/developer for specific details if needed.

I am still feeling we are trying to workaround flow API design constrain with 
documentation, although we know it won't be complete.
And not really clear who will benefit from this in what way.

Anyway, as mentioned above I am concerned the maintenance cost, can this series 
investigate:
1) A way to automatically fill the table from source code
2) A way to check if a patch is adding a new flow support but not documenting it

Also can you please propose a maintainer for it (can be documented in MAINTAINER 
file) who will be responsible of the correctness of the table, which means:
- Will verify a claimed support by a PMD is really supported
- All flow API features are documented for a PMD
- Changes in the code are reflected to the documentation
- Trace PMD maintainers for missing data