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 9BD14A0350; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 17:48:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5F940DF6; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 17:48:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5689040DF4 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 17:48:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4306632009EF; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:48:53 -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=DKceRg8KhApDIp Ou25hQzRhhCf0YASz3C9hjGIfIADo=; b=E/JJd+KIV1mHXvN7IWgXzMca8SNqCw RTSCg5zycwdPTg7h4c5X7ciqoD0NKDohYcOJYvXLpTg1RHirw3lZ+vuMSf0e2Yhk mnz2i7GduNyAPOMFAcY/+hYMW/PLfc8YLN+dfNsIBSGAdk5S6U77KYAA7MCq9di0 5C+1o2+a4Kbz61/Y0mmMqRr2dFJ8gTM5MhYhyAYIf186JsfXd/UDd1s5gsP83IzG O0WEeAhmdoKo0vmFd6NB63lf5BP3BaOjzZtG0+3IJkVJF+ivjsNJqVaYao8JbjEv V1gJxkTGs5e+Gl/rY9yvEOaDjIsqalqGNMVX+qLZZJV2rAStMT7po0Gw== 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=DKceRg8KhApDIpOu25hQzRhhCf0YASz3C9hjGIfIA Do=; b=fKxGCo2GgunhCvZDW+2FZMMFpCB7fHdrDE5lqatkey3JECz88c5JBsPgx BLX1LHrXkbf3WOob3IwTKUDJgTACnXpVm6NP7u8XoGoxQZD610MhcNcnXLn5fkB0 H9WHnHwZK6QMqyPz4v7+N0PeF8gjF3WHR3XH9LoAwb/ftY1w1vDRL/dqsMf0UvsI QB2YiwnPNaSnrIHCpyfUKa2G17BT1yQbKRNPDiF41wIAO5DbllE5pzKLzwovG9Ga MuyOOo37ChzDW3XLbUFszsiBMS40pkwSAanFGxd0bW4gumpGHDCBzM7GVHDnrLpO iWIkcqMEpqCPmFcqBKF0txkNE1s+g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrkeekgdelvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:48:51 -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 17:48:49 +0100 Message-ID: <2262420.IPqQCg1nHW@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220126124459.2469838-1-sean.morrissey@intel.com> <1908816.VSt6etZd6J@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 22/02/2022 16:13, 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.