[dpdk-dev,RFC,3/3] doc: announce ABI change for filtering support

  Current filtering support will be enhanced to accommodate support
for Chelsio T5 hardware filtering support.

Signed-off-by: Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Sanghvi <kumaras@chelsio.com>
---
 doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
  

Hi Thomas,

I am preparing a v2 of this series where I will be accomodating some
more fields to be considered for filtering. However, if the overall
approach seems ok to everyone then, should I submit a separate patch
for this ABI change announcement ?


Thanks,
Rahul.

On Thursday, December 12/10/15, 2015 at 19:31:04 +0530, Rahul Lakkireddy wrote:
> Current filtering support will be enhanced to accommodate support
> for Chelsio T5 hardware filtering support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Sanghvi <kumaras@chelsio.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index 1c7ab01..ca43b16 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -19,3 +19,9 @@ Deprecation Notices
>    and table action handlers will be updated:
>    the pipeline parameter will be added, the packets mask parameter will be
>    either removed (for input port action handler) or made input-only.
> +
> +* The filtering support will be changed to add a new packet filter
> +  flow, add a new behavior 'switch', add an ability to add mask
> +  for fields in each filter rule, and add an ability to pass extra
> +  arguments for the behavior taken to allow rewriting matched fields
> +  in filter rule.
> -- 
> 2.5.3
>
  

2015-12-15 14:10, Rahul Lakkireddy:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I am preparing a v2 of this series where I will be accomodating some
> more fields to be considered for filtering. However, if the overall
> approach seems ok to everyone then, should I submit a separate patch
> for this ABI change announcement ?

Yes, if this announce is not enough:
	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=648e6b3815a35
  

Hi Thomas,

On Tuesday, December 12/15/15, 2015 at 00:55:20 -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-12-15 14:10, Rahul Lakkireddy:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > I am preparing a v2 of this series where I will be accomodating some
> > more fields to be considered for filtering. However, if the overall
> > approach seems ok to everyone then, should I submit a separate patch
> > for this ABI change announcement ?
> 
> Yes, if this announce is not enough:
> 	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=648e6b3815a35
> 

Apart from rte_eth_fdir_flow ABI change mentioned in above link, new
fields will be added to rte_eth_ipv4_flow and rte_eth_ipv6_flow,
which break their ABI.

Also, 4 new flow types will be added, which increases RTE_ETH_FLOW_MAX
from 18 to 22 and breaks the ABI.

Should I send a separate ABI change announce patch for each of them?

Thanks,
Rahul
  

2015-12-15 19:21, Rahul Lakkireddy:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Tuesday, December 12/15/15, 2015 at 00:55:20 -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-12-15 14:10, Rahul Lakkireddy:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > 
> > > I am preparing a v2 of this series where I will be accomodating some
> > > more fields to be considered for filtering. However, if the overall
> > > approach seems ok to everyone then, should I submit a separate patch
> > > for this ABI change announcement ?
> > 
> > Yes, if this announce is not enough:
> > 	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=648e6b3815a35
> > 
> 
> Apart from rte_eth_fdir_flow ABI change mentioned in above link, new
> fields will be added to rte_eth_ipv4_flow and rte_eth_ipv6_flow,
> which break their ABI.
> 
> Also, 4 new flow types will be added, which increases RTE_ETH_FLOW_MAX
> from 18 to 22 and breaks the ABI.
> 
> Should I send a separate ABI change announce patch for each of them?

Yes please send a patch (1 is enough).
You have less than 30 minutes :)