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 17E83A034E; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:46:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2954426E2; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:46:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EB441156 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:46:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DEE580179; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:46:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:46:27 -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=Qn1hq26gr5kSzq +lDmr3tmWT6BZhsJ3kWU96mha9/X8=; b=XztnfY99PAi/ct+nbmlmN+LPno4uzg u9+XcRrnMXY1X0Yck9ZRWFF30bK9J7NKC0I93u5wv9N7ClmGJ3p3G1EjejEceM1A nA1oenu9eL15s0d/2zUNxsqdXg14vVu3sK+N61benlwdPFyAOpoiI5SVxtqAPEB2 OiLpWEoCJF2VS9HnpGYt7xtxku8fr86mJMReJCEdaFzcxlp0jfFHFDanhsnl2R6i ZK0Su6txunJSBQdt02MotbeZv4qk6PPMrIz0qYSFdsybbpSDOQZJDdfpXnVILDob KzKweP7nM25Mml+RcsM/e2qI1yWLxRY2qyYOoDbQTmw2pon2WZv7VM4Q== 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=Qn1hq26gr5kSzq+lDmr3tmWT6BZhsJ3kWU96mha9/ X8=; b=AObnaG7JsYw/6r/836/rmWAF5k+F8/fyQYPC40Eajc3CSHFI0VAV4zBNA 9yCiGum4NnHiBlLPoz+1sogThnwU52yesIukGA0ElCNDc2TEd4wYUcozBWF3Rgzz roxxbqb8i/10PcRzpxo36FI7OebjcFye09lCQDLEpJPGJNtc42IFAWo2aXNoMpuS yzgdUECIc1aA1lXphCK4PATbFGxbQepEFvhl9an3S9H9t3stifHXsrtuiQvvkOiz u685sF+j+fDkf8O3n0MqYTVfqg/7OAbR3QoCpD5388GVQvlFo7td4mzFhUZgc8FA gOzZ/BpshH0+gpAL1zA5BAt1abqtw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrledvgdehhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:46:25 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger , "Medvedkin, Vladimir" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Morrissey, Sean" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, jerinj@marvell.com, ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, ktraynor@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Add config file support for l3fwd Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:46:24 +0100 Message-ID: <2122832.NgBsaNRSFp@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220126124459.2469838-1-sean.morrissey@intel.com> <2262420.IPqQCg1nHW@thomas> 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 24/02/2022 12:06, 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. > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, from one perspective it not really a critical one, > > > > > we do live with hard-coded routes inside l3fwd for nearly 10 year by now. > > > > > Though l3fwd is one of mostly used examples inside DPDK and > > > > > it is quite a pain to patch/rebuild it each time someone needs to run > > > > > l3fwd with a different routing table. > > > > > Merging this patch will allow people to use l3fwd for more realistic test > > > > > scenarios in a painless manner. > > > > > So I believe this patch is really helpful and should be beneficial for the whole community. > > > > > Looking from that perspective, I don't see why it has to be "all or nothing" attitude here. > > > > > Why we can't move one step at a time instead? > > > > > That would allow to split and effort in terms of development/testing/upstreaming/etc. > > > > > > > > When a feature is merged, there is less incentives to rework. > > > > That's why, when a feature is not urgent, > > > > it is better to wait for the complete work. > > > > > > That's true till some extent, though from other side > > > even without further rework that patch improves situation > > > from what we have right now. > > > So I don't see any harm here. > > > > It is adding a lot of code to an example which is already too big. > > There are a lot of complain about the size of l3fwd. > > That's why I think it makes sense to require this extra code > > (not demonstrating anything, but just for testing convenience) > > outside of the example. > > Ok, so your main concern is l3fwd code size increase, right? > Then would it help if for we'll move file parsing code into a separate file(s) > (under examples/l3fwd) for now? > Something like examples/l3fwd/(lpm_em)_route_parse.c. Yes it would help to isolate the config file parsing code. What others think?