27/08/2026 09:58, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 8/26/2026 4:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/08/2026 12:20, Burakov, Anatoly: > >> On 8/26/2026 11:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 26/08/2026 10:58, Burakov, Anatoly: > >>>> On 8/25/2026 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> 20/08/2026 16:00, Anatoly Burakov: > >>>>>> This commit adds a flow graph parsing API. This is a helper API > >>>>>> intended to > >>>>>> help ethdev drivers implement rte_flow parsers, as common usages map to > >>>>>> graph traversal problem very well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Features provided by the API: > >>>>>> - Flow graph, edge, and node definitions > >>>>>> - Graph traversal logic > >>>>>> - Declarative validation against common flow item types > >>>>>> - Per-node validation and state processing callbacks > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>> lib/ethdev/rte_flow_graph.h | 532 ++++++++++++++ > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we sure about the name? Why not "parsing" instead of "graph"? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Because it is intended to help build *protocol graphs*, not *generic > >>>> flow parsing*. I.e. only things that lend themselves to be represented > >>>> by a graph would work with this - things like conntrack wouldn't. So, I > >>>> feel like "graph" is a more accurate name for this, because this is only > >>>> for enabling the protocol graph walk, not for full flow parsing. > >>> > >>> OK > >>> > >>>>> Is it only for drivers? In this case, no need to make it a public API. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, it is for drivers. It is not a public API, it is not installed into > >>>> public headers. If there is anything I forgot to do to remove it from > >>>> being public, please let me know. > >>> > >>> You should not use the rte_ prefix for files which are not public. > >>> I know this convention is not well followed for historical reason, > >>> like rte_flow_driver.h should be flow_driver.h > >>> > >>> > >> > >> The fact that it didn't look like there was no convention was why I > >> picked rte_ prefix. I'll happily use a non-rte prefix for these. Maybe > >> use eth_ prefix for both flow_graph and flow_driver? Or does flow_graph > >> work fine? > > > > I don't think adding eth prefix is needed. > > > >> [on a separate note: should rte_vfio follow suit and be renamed? it is > >> no longer a public API following my patchset. renaming it to `vfio` > >> would probably cause conflicts with Linux headers, so maybe something > >> like vfio_driver like flow_driver?] > > > > Yes vfio_driver looks fine. > > > > > > Actually, on second thought, "vfio_driver" is too similar to > "bus_driver" and "dev_driver" which kind of implies that "vfio_driver" > is for writing vfio drivers. Maybe dev_vfio would be better? > > (flow_driver sits in lib/ethdev which is a driver subsystem, but vfio > sits in EAL which is not, so for flow_driver I think "flow_driver" is > OK, but vfio header is in common include together with bus_driver and > dev_driver, I think vfio_driver would be confusing)
OK
