From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E78D107A for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 11:40:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2017 02:40:26 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,363,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="102942940" Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.3]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2017 02:40:25 -0700 Received: from irsmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.12]) by IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.239]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 19 May 2017 10:40:24 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan_Rivet?= CC: Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Tahhan, Maryam" , "adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library Thread-Index: AQHSzycWQ0k8i1G2ske7ihNZHerxZ6H4qQsAgAE9EgCAAJZngIAA4KjA///zjICAABhTQA== Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 09:40:24 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF806C@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20170420185448.19162-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170517163848.GQ14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> <2028578.MMgbIyi7hy@xps> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF803F@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170519091127.GY14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <20170519091127.GY14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 09:40:28 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ga=EBtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:11 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Yigit, Ferruh ; dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John > ; Tahhan, Maryam ; adri= en.mazarguil@6wind.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classi= fy library >=20 > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 08:57:01AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > >> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:32 PM > >> To: Yigit, Ferruh > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ga=EBtan Rivet ; Ananyev, Ko= nstantin ; Mcnamara, John > >> ; Tahhan, Maryam ; a= drien.mazarguil@6wind.com > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_cla= ssify library > >> > >> 18/05/2017 13:33, Ferruh Yigit: > >> > On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Ga=EBtan Rivet wrote: > >> > > The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Usin= g > >> > > flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be = flexible > >> > > enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are > >> > > already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As > >> > > mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover = IPFIX > >> > > meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think. > >> > > > >> > > So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about > >> > > supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key > >> > > applications would use to configure their measurements. This shoul= d not > >> > > require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only > >> > > rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library. > >> > > > >> > > Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow > >> > > representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applicati= ons > >> > > to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the > >> > > classification has been analyzed. > >> > > >> > Thanks for clarification, I see now what you and Konstantin is propo= sing. > >> > > >> > And yes it makes sense to use rte_flow to define flows in the librar= y, I > >> > will update the RFC. > >> > >> Does it mean that rte_flow.h must be moved from ethdev to this > >> new flow library? Or will it depend of ethdev? >=20 > Even outside of lib/librte_ether, wouldn't rte_flow stay dependent on > rte_ether? >=20 > > > >Just a thought: probably move rte_flow.h to lib/librte_net? > >Konstantin >=20 > If we are to move rte_flow, why not lib/librte_flow? To avoid new dependency for lib/lirte_ethdev? >=20 > -- > Ga=EBtan Rivet > 6WIND