From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EB2A034E; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:59:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4142C40DF6; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:59:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCC640DF4 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:59:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030055C029C; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:59:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:59:13 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; bh=z/Qqkx/48nKzIR q1J8SlZAzGkR6ABmk10GaB//HOGjw=; b=M+HOfnp2twiWWetewQM5hNNmi+3jaA zjEwJkeJv8uTedLvcM2Y6V3UxXDlUkGMoAcAjuJk4G2CwPJm88x21ByOfiDyYF5c BEa7l8rrjndwKOgfcVAOhOQ9KDGA0WRdC0O9PmnIkqGdKNMD6jONgaIaLkClwt/e BcauvHTODFXOyM2b5bKYmoRYGITxbSfk9+VBvv2aNHKmGV2lOoy1t68H/aFVpEca IscjyHnrbxZ9EFCDvWisCYZeuGAaxA5l/Mjbnnb2zXuB1zXdxAbKV9ZR6oGGB+8b RerQZ+crv75uDrVfgujgbdb+Rd+b1SJFRefq8wobpNylK2ZOs1ZTR1Dg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=z/Qqkx/48nKzIRq1J8SlZAzGkR6ABmk10GaB//HOG jw=; b=aa44vpercE8p+PHKLB72M1r9liReWxzWb3XxTZT2wwrslSEpAAZgJihsH LEz61U5JC2qEjKHZPPe2/Vj8JfGm41I1W7vRif9NQB1ukegMBff/ZORA0V3xhKPA oSNgZDlC4AG6cWW36MOI6Oi7B6ImRkeUecw5NnyG689dTS3t6axyA79vcuqoeBta ckFFOOIOH+LQYgqPjJNHoUYRMHgcrm0f48KHrwzRjA/qLvq/GXbQm3eTomvOEmbG rS2O+INg8wG9nuinTnnqq/XK5CooEt7BW+Ym2+76Zyo8oy0Sn7Kqrc3Jl5HmmrcW rkx4hg8Dk+CjbpbvtKldxRZ7HHqag== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrkeekgddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:59:11 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger , "Medvedkin, Vladimir" , dev@dpdk.org, "Morrissey, Sean" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Add config file support for l3fwd Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:59:09 +0100 Message-ID: <1763854.FMhQkTaH9n@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220126124459.2469838-1-sean.morrissey@intel.com> <20220208094904.5ca9db4c@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 09/02/2022 13:00, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > >> Or have a generic library for reading LPM entries. L3fwd is supposed > > > >> to be as small as possible (it no longer is), and the real work should > > > >> be done by libraries to make it easier to build other applications. > > > > > > > > I never heard users ask about such thing, > > > > but if there is a demand for that, then I suppose it could be considered. > > > > CC-ing LPM/FIB maintainers to comment. > > > > Though I believe it should be a subject of separate patch and discussion > > > > (I think many questions will arise - what format should be, how to support > > > > different types of user-data, to make it generic enough, etc.). > > > > > > Agree, it is very application specific, so it could be really difficult > > > to make it generic. > > > > But several other also have LPM tables, so why not have common code for other applications. > > > > examples/l3fwd-power/main.c > > examples/ipsec-secgw/rt.c > > examples/ip_fragmentation/main.c > > examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c > > examples/ip_reassembly/main.c > > Ah yes, that's good point. > All these examples (except ipsec-secgw) started as l3fwd clones, > so all of them have hard-coded LPM (and EM) tables too. > Yes it would be good thing to address that problem too, > and have some common code (and common routes file format) for all of them. > I don't know is that a good idea to introduce parse file function in LPM/FIB library > itself, might be better to have something like examples/common/lpm_parse*. > Anyway, this is an extra effort, and I think no-one has time for it in 22.03 timeframe. > My suggestion would be for 22.03 go ahead with current l3fwd patches, > then later we can consider to make it common and update other examples. I don't think this patch is urgent. I suggest taking time to have common code for all examples and target a merge in DPDK 22.07.