DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes
@ 2019-11-11  7:46 Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
  2020-07-30 21:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula @ 2019-11-11  7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Marchand
  Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran, Marko Kovacevic, Ori Kam,
	Bruce Richardson, Radu Nicolau, Akhil Goyal, Tomasz Kantecki,
	dev

>On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>
>> Increase the number of routes from 8 to 16 that are statically added
>for
>> lpm and em mode as most of the SoCs support more than 8
>interfaces.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>> ---
>>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c  | 72
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 16 +++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>> index 74a7c8fa4..c07a5b937 100644
>> --- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>> @@ -103,6 +103,18 @@ static struct ipv4_l3fwd_em_route
>ipv4_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
>>         {{RTE_IPV4(201, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 1},
>>         {{RTE_IPV4(111, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 2},
>>         {{RTE_IPV4(211, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 3},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(121, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 10, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 4},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(221, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 5},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(131, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 6},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(231, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 7},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(141, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 8},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(241, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 9},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(151, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 10},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(251, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 11},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(161, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 12},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(261, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 13},
>
>Am I reading this correctly ? 261.0.0.0 ?

My bad. Do you think it's better to change the address to    198.18.0.0/15 block as it
would be inline with RFC as well as LPM addresses? 

>
>
>--
>David Marchand


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes
  2019-11-11  7:46 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
@ 2020-07-30 21:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2020-07-30 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
  Cc: David Marchand, dev, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran, Marko Kovacevic,
	Ori Kam, Bruce Richardson, Radu Nicolau, Akhil Goyal,
	Tomasz Kantecki, dev

11/11/2019 08:46, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula:
> >On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>
> >> Increase the number of routes from 8 to 16 that are statically added
> >for
> >> lpm and em mode as most of the SoCs support more than 8
> >interfaces.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >> ---
> >>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c  | 72
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 16 +++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> >b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> >> index 74a7c8fa4..c07a5b937 100644
> >> --- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> >> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> >> @@ -103,6 +103,18 @@ static struct ipv4_l3fwd_em_route
> >ipv4_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
> >>         {{RTE_IPV4(201, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 1},
> >>         {{RTE_IPV4(111, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 2},
> >>         {{RTE_IPV4(211, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 3},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(121, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 10, 0, 1),  101, 11,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 4},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(221, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 5},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(131, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 6},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(231, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 7},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(141, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 8},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(241, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 9},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(151, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 10},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(251, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 11},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(161, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 12},
> >> +       {{RTE_IPV4(261, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
> >IPPROTO_TCP}, 13},
> >
> >Am I reading this correctly ? 261.0.0.0 ?
> 
> My bad. Do you think it's better to change the address to    198.18.0.0/15 block as it
> would be inline with RFC as well as LPM addresses? 

After 9 months, I think you could send a v2 ;)





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes
  2019-10-30  5:23 pbhagavatula
@ 2019-11-08  8:51 ` David Marchand
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Marchand @ 2019-11-08  8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavan Nikhilesh
  Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran, Marko Kovacevic, Ori Kam,
	Bruce Richardson, Radu Nicolau, Akhil Goyal, Tomasz Kantecki,
	dev

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
>
> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>
> Increase the number of routes from 8 to 16 that are statically added for
> lpm and em mode as most of the SoCs support more than 8 interfaces.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> ---
>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c  | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 16 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> index 74a7c8fa4..c07a5b937 100644
> --- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> @@ -103,6 +103,18 @@ static struct ipv4_l3fwd_em_route ipv4_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
>         {{RTE_IPV4(201, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 1},
>         {{RTE_IPV4(111, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 2},
>         {{RTE_IPV4(211, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 3},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(121, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 10, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 4},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(221, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 5},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(131, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 6},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(231, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 7},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(141, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 8},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(241, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 9},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(151, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 10},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(251, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 11},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(161, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 12},
> +       {{RTE_IPV4(261, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 13},

Am I reading this correctly ? 261.0.0.0 ?


-- 
David Marchand


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev]  [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes
@ 2019-10-30  5:23 pbhagavatula
  2019-11-08  8:51 ` David Marchand
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: pbhagavatula @ 2019-10-30  5:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jerinj, Marko Kovacevic, Ori Kam, Bruce Richardson, Radu Nicolau,
	Akhil Goyal, Tomasz Kantecki
  Cc: dev, Pavan Nikhilesh

From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>

Increase the number of routes from 8 to 16 that are statically added for
lpm and em mode as most of the SoCs support more than 8 interfaces.

Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
---
 examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c  | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 16 +++++++++
 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)

diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
index 74a7c8fa4..c07a5b937 100644
--- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
+++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
@@ -103,6 +103,18 @@ static struct ipv4_l3fwd_em_route ipv4_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
 	{{RTE_IPV4(201, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 1},
 	{{RTE_IPV4(111, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 2},
 	{{RTE_IPV4(211, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 3},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(121, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 10, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 4},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(221, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 5},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(131, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 6},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(231, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 7},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(141, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 8},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(241, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 9},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(151, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 10},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(251, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 11},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(161, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 12},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(261, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 13},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(171, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 14},
+	{{RTE_IPV4(271, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 15},
 };
 
 static struct ipv6_l3fwd_em_route ipv6_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
@@ -125,6 +137,66 @@ static struct ipv6_l3fwd_em_route ipv6_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
 	{0xfe, 0xb0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
 	{0xfe, 0xb0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
 	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 3},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xc0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xc0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 4},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xd0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xd0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 5},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xe0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xe0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 6},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xf0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xf0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 7},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0x81, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0x81, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 8},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0x92, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0x92, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 9},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xa3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xa3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 10},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xb4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xb4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 11},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xc5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xc5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 12},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xd6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xd6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 13},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xe7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xe7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	101, 11, IPPROTO_TCP}, 14},
+
+	{{
+	{0xfe, 0xf8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1e, 0x67, 0xff, 0xfe, 0, 0, 0},
+	{0xfe, 0xf8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x02, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x91, 0x38, 0x05},
+	102, 12, IPPROTO_TCP}, 15},
 };
 
 struct rte_hash *ipv4_l3fwd_em_lookup_struct[NB_SOCKETS];
diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c
index a3a65f7fc..ace5823b5 100644
--- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c
+++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c
@@ -51,6 +51,14 @@ static struct ipv4_l3fwd_lpm_route ipv4_l3fwd_lpm_route_array[] = {
 	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 5, 0), 24, 5},
 	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 6, 0), 24, 6},
 	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 7, 0), 24, 7},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 8, 0), 24, 8},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 9, 0), 24, 9},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 10, 0), 24, 10},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 11, 0), 24, 11},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 12, 0), 24, 12},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 13, 0), 24, 13},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 14, 0), 24, 14},
+	{RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 15, 0), 24, 15},
 };
 
 /* 2001:0200::/48 is IANA reserved range for IPv6 benchmarking (RFC5180) */
@@ -63,6 +71,14 @@ static struct ipv6_l3fwd_lpm_route ipv6_l3fwd_lpm_route_array[] = {
 	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 5},
 	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 6},
 	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 7},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 8},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 9},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 10},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 11, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 11},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 12, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 12},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 13, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 13},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 14},
+	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 15, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 15},
 };
 
 #define IPV4_L3FWD_LPM_NUM_ROUTES \
-- 
2.17.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-11-11  7:46 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-07-30 21:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-10-30  5:23 pbhagavatula
2019-11-08  8:51 ` David Marchand

DPDK patches and discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox