rte_flow_action_handle_create() did not mention what happens
with an indirect action when a device is stopped and started again.
It is natural for some indirect actions, like counter, to be persistent.
Keeping others at least saves application time and complexity.
However, not all PMDs can support it, or the support may be limited
by particular action kinds, that is, combinations of action type
and the value of the transfer bit in its configuration.
Add a device capability to indicate if at least some indirect actions
are kept across the above sequence. Without this capability the behavior
is still unspecified, and application is required to destroy
the indirect actions before stopping the device.
In the future, indirect actions may not be the only type of objects
shared between flow rules. The capability bit intends to cover all
possible types of such objects, hence its name.
Declare that the application can test for the persistence
of a particular indirect action kind by attempting to create
an indirect action of that kind when the device is stopped
and checking for the specific error type.
This is logical because if the PMD can to create an indirect action
when the device is not started and use it after the start happens,
it is natural that it can move its internal flow shared object
to the same state when the device is stopped and restore the state
when the device is started.
Indirect action persistence across a reconfigurations is not required.
In case a PMD cannot keep the indirect actions across reconfiguration,
it is allowed just to report an error.
Application must then flush the indirect actions before attempting it.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
2c9cd45de7