diff mbox

[dpdk-dev,1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop

Message ID 20170303015924.68986-2-qi.z.zhang@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested, archived
Delegated to: Ferruh Yigit
Headers

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Qi Zhang March 3, 2017, 1:59 a.m. UTC 
  Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable
for specific VF.

Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
---
 drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)

Comments

Ferruh Yigit March 7, 2017, 10:51 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable
> for specific VF.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++

Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in
*version.map file

>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> 

<...>

> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
>  int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
>  				uint16_t vf_id);
>  
> +/**
> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
> + *
> + * @param port
> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> + * @param vf_id
> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
> + * @param on
> + *    Enable or Disable
> + * @retura

@return

> + *  - (0) if successful.
> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> + */
> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
> +					uint16_t vf_id,
> +					uint8_t on);

As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following syntax
in API:
<name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:

rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be removed?

> +
>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
>
Qi Zhang March 9, 2017, 3:24 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Ferruh:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:51 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>;
> Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
> 
> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for
> > specific VF.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
> 
> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in *version.map file
> 
> >  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> >
> 
> <...>
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,  int
> > rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> >  				uint16_t vf_id);
> >
> > +/**
> > + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
> > + *
> > + * @param port
> > + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> > + * @param vf_id
> > + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
> > + * @param on
> > + *    Enable or Disable
> > + * @retura
> 
> @return
> 
> > + *  - (0) if successful.
> > + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
> > + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> > + */
> > +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
> > +					uint16_t vf_id,
> > +					uint8_t on);
> 
> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following syntax in API:
> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right? See below
		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
        rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
        rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
        rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
        rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag;
so what's wrong with this?
> 
> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be removed?
> 
> > +
> >  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
> >
Ferruh Yigit March 14, 2017, 1:29 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 3/9/2017 3:24 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> Hi Ferruh:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:51 PM
>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>;
>> Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
>>
>> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
>>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for
>>> specific VF.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
>>
>> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in *version.map file
>>
>>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
>>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
>>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,  int
>>> rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
>>>  				uint16_t vf_id);
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
>>> + *
>>> + * @param port
>>> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
>>> + * @param vf_id
>>> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
>>> + * @param on
>>> + *    Enable or Disable
>>> + * @retura
>>
>> @return
>>
>>> + *  - (0) if successful.
>>> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
>>> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
>>> + */
>>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
>>> +					uint16_t vf_id,
>>> +					uint8_t on);
>>
>> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following syntax in API:
>> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
> I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right? 

Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining one.

> See below
> 		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag;
> so what's wrong with this?

This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree. Easier
to see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x, ns_del_x will
spread to different locations.

This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with all
APIs in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than action
based grouping.

And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is
agreed on, I am OK.

>>
>> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be removed?
>>
>>> +
>>>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
>>>
>
Qi Zhang March 14, 2017, 2:32 p.m. UTC | #4 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:30 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
> 
> On 3/9/2017 3:24 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> > Hi Ferruh:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:51 PM
> >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> >> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
> >>
> >> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> >>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for
> >>> specific VF.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in
> >> *version.map file
> >>
> >>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> >>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> >>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> >>> int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> >>>  				uint16_t vf_id);
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
> >>> + *
> >>> + * @param port
> >>> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> >>> + * @param vf_id
> >>> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
> >>> + * @param on
> >>> + *    Enable or Disable
> >>> + * @retura
> >>
> >> @return
> >>
> >>> + *  - (0) if successful.
> >>> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
> >>> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> >>> + */
> >>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
> >>> +					uint16_t vf_id,
> >>> +					uint8_t on);
> >>
> >> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following syntax in
> API:	
> >> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
> > I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right?
> 
> Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining one.
> 
> > See below
> > 		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
> >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
> >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
> >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
> >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag;
> > so what's wrong with this 
> 
> This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree. Easier to
> see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x, ns_del_x will spread
> to different locations.
I agree with your point, I had thought your concern is only about this patch, but actually it's not.
> 
> This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with all APIs
> in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than action based
> grouping.

> 
> And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is agreed on,
I don't, sorry for make you misunderstand
> 
> >>
> >> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be
> removed?
> >>
> >>> +
> >>>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
> >>>
> >
Iremonger, Bernard March 14, 2017, 6:16 p.m. UTC | #5 
Hi Ferruh, Qi,

<snip>

> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
> > >>
> > >> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > >>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for
> > >>> specific VF.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
> > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in
> > >> *version.map file
> > >>
> > >>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> <...>
> > >>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > >>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > >>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> > >>> int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> > >>>  				uint16_t vf_id);
> > >>>
> > >>> +/**
> > >>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * @param port
> > >>> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> > >>> + * @param vf_id
> > >>> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
> > >>> + * @param on
> > >>> + *    Enable or Disable
> > >>> + * @retura
> > >>
> > >> @return
> > >>
> > >>> + *  - (0) if successful.
> > >>> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
> > >>> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
> > >>> +					uint16_t vf_id,
> > >>> +					uint8_t on);
> > >>
> > >> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following
> > >> syntax in
> > API:
> > >> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
> > > I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right?

 This seems to be the existing naming convention.

> >
> > Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining one.
> >
> > > See below
> > > 		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag; so what's wrong with this
> >
> > This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree.
> > Easier to see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x,
> > ns_del_x will spread to different locations.
> I agree with your point, I had thought your concern is only about this patch,
> but actually it's not.
> >
> > This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with
> > all APIs in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than
> > action based grouping.
> 
> >
> > And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is
> > agreed on,
> I don't, sorry for make you misunderstand

I don't think changing the name convention at this point is a good idea.
It would be better to remain consistent with the existing naming convention.
Otherwise both naming conventions will exist for the rte_pmd_i40e_* API's.
 

> > >> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be
> > removed?
> > >>
> > >>> +
> > >>>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
> > >>>
> > >

Regards,

Bernard.
Ferruh Yigit March 23, 2017, 5 p.m. UTC | #6 
On 3/14/2017 6:16 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> Hi Ferruh, Qi,
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for
>>>>>> specific VF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in
>>>>> *version.map file
>>>>>
>>>>>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
>>>>>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
>>>>>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
>>>>>> int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
>>>>>>  				uint16_t vf_id);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * @param port
>>>>>> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
>>>>>> + * @param vf_id
>>>>>> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
>>>>>> + * @param on
>>>>>> + *    Enable or Disable
>>>>>> + * @retura
>>>>>
>>>>> @return
>>>>>
>>>>>> + *  - (0) if successful.
>>>>>> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
>>>>>> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
>>>>>> +					uint16_t vf_id,
>>>>>> +					uint8_t on);
>>>>>
>>>>> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following
>>>>> syntax in
>>> API:
>>>>> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
>>>> I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right?
> 
>  This seems to be the existing naming convention.
> 
>>>
>>> Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining one.
>>>
>>>> See below
>>>> 		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
>>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
>>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
>>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
>>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag; so what's wrong with this
>>>
>>> This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree.
>>> Easier to see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x,
>>> ns_del_x will spread to different locations.
>> I agree with your point, I had thought your concern is only about this patch,
>> but actually it's not.
>>>
>>> This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with
>>> all APIs in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than
>>> action based grouping.
>>
>>>
>>> And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is
>>> agreed on,
>> I don't, sorry for make you misunderstand
> 
> I don't think changing the name convention at this point is a good idea.

I am not suggesting changing existing ones, for the sake compatibility.
But that can also be an option, since these are PMD specific API, I
expect usage will be limited and these does not carry as high standard
as library APIs.

> It would be better to remain consistent with the existing naming convention.

Existing i40e ones added this way to be compatible with existing ixgbe
ones. But I don't think we need to follow old usage with new APIs.

> Otherwise both naming conventions will exist for the rte_pmd_i40e_* API's.

It can be for a while, later all can be fixed. If you think proposed
convention is not better, that is something else.

>  
> 
>>>>> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be
>>> removed?
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
>>>>>>
>>>>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bernard.
>
Iremonger, Bernard March 23, 2017, 5:22 p.m. UTC | #7 
Hi Ferruh,
<snip>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> >>>>>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable
> >>>>>> for specific VF.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
> >>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in
> >>>>> *version.map file
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> >>>>>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> >>>>>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t
> port,
> >>>>>> int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> >>>>>>  				uint16_t vf_id);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * @param port
> >>>>>> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> >>>>>> + * @param vf_id
> >>>>>> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
> >>>>>> + * @param on
> >>>>>> + *    Enable or Disable
> >>>>>> + * @retura
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @return
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> + *  - (0) if successful.
> >>>>>> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
> >>>>>> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
> >>>>>> +					uint16_t vf_id,
> >>>>>> +					uint8_t on);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following
> >>>>> syntax in
> >>> API:
> >>>>> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
> >>>> I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object>
> right?
> >
> >  This seems to be the existing naming convention.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining
> one.
> >>>
> >>>> See below
> >>>> 		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
> >>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
> >>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
> >>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
> >>>>         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag; so what's wrong with this
> >>>
> >>> This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree.
> >>> Easier to see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x,
> >>> ns_del_x will spread to different locations.
> >> I agree with your point, I had thought your concern is only about
> >> this patch, but actually it's not.
> >>>
> >>> This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with
> >>> all APIs in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than
> >>> action based grouping.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is
> >>> agreed on,
> >> I don't, sorry for make you misunderstand
> >
> > I don't think changing the name convention at this point is a good idea.
> 
> I am not suggesting changing existing ones, for the sake compatibility.
> But that can also be an option, since these are PMD specific API, I expect
> usage will be limited and these does not carry as high standard as library APIs.

These API's are already in use with users. 

> > It would be better to remain consistent with the existing naming
> convention.
> 
> Existing i40e ones added this way to be compatible with existing ixgbe ones.
> But I don't think we need to follow old usage with new APIs.
> 
> > Otherwise both naming conventions will exist for the rte_pmd_i40e_*
> API's.
> 
> It can be for a while, later all can be fixed. If you think proposed convention is
> not better, that is something else.

I don't see anything to be gained by using two naming conventions side by side.
I don't have a strong view on which name convention is better, however the existing naming convention is what is in use with users at present. It is also the naming convention used librte_ether.

Changing API naming conventions is something that should probably be discussed in a separate thread, as it can have a wider impact than the i40e and ixgbe PMD's.
 
> >
> >
> >>>>> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be
> >>> removed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
> >>>>>>
> >>>>

Regards,

Bernard.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
index 303027b..9915cb2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
@@ -11212,3 +11212,52 @@  rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
 
 	return 0;
 }
+
+int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
+					uint16_t vf_id,
+					uint8_t on)
+{
+	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
+	struct i40e_pf *pf;
+	struct i40e_vsi *vsi;
+	struct i40e_aqc_add_remove_vlan_element_data vlan_data = {0};
+	struct i40e_hw *hw;
+	int ret;
+
+	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port, -ENODEV);
+
+	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port];
+
+	if (!is_device_supported(dev, &rte_i40e_pmd))
+		return -ENOTSUP;
+
+	pf = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_PF(dev->data->dev_private);
+
+	if (vf_id >= pf->vf_num || !pf->vfs) {
+		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid VF ID.");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	vsi = pf->vfs[vf_id].vsi;
+	if (!vsi) {
+		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid VSI.");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	hw = I40E_VSI_TO_HW(vsi);
+	vlan_data.vlan_tag = 0;
+	vlan_data.vlan_flags = 0x1;
+
+	if (on) {
+		ret = i40e_aq_add_vlan(hw, vsi->seid, &vlan_data, 1, NULL);
+		if (ret != I40E_SUCCESS)
+			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to add vlan filter");
+	} else {
+		ret = i40e_aq_remove_vlan(hw, vsi->seid,
+					&vlan_data, 1, NULL);
+		if (ret != I40E_SUCCESS)
+			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to remove vlan filter");
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
+++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
@@ -332,4 +332,22 @@  int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
 int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
 				uint16_t vf_id);
 
+/**
+ * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
+ *
+ * @param port
+ *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
+ * @param vf_id
+ *    VF on witch to enable/disable
+ * @param on
+ *    Enable or Disable
+ * @retura
+ *  - (0) if successful.
+ *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
+ *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
+ */
+int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
+					uint16_t vf_id,
+					uint8_t on);
+
 #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */