From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02966A052B; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E702BB9; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613572BB8 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:28:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C1A5C01B6; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:28:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= Rs3QMX8zIipUJzz+FvHUDpdUP8cL9EiVf+BcAJxhPds=; b=SIUHJ7/JjySJBUzm nHJKlp78WfnbL8aJlQNV4zJx87p70mYnKQJkpFc7Wdb6cSfiZOdDZEMKJnWfseaJ Dd79iof9aovvJuyKXBTwHHW7c0cf6nCHzvttytAgM3GkGjVNXkxrWKlO/PzWbRSG +Wh5kPw3jxhB0lnIDuC0/GaEImHbvxJ7rBMUHZEGLxwBZ6P4fMs6WnpsBRZWdexV 9cPrmiiLYo5aBs8cYbCzadPauMGQU0F1Lha0aKPI7gCM5xFA0ERzp1j5RQ/s9cCM 0ncigSXACBBLGlf+KBJjMCPkxTKy0TInrVyA5NPRPDUXMNuHdqF3tzmzGzh7LnJx NtqWKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=Rs3QMX8zIipUJzz+FvHUDpdUP8cL9EiVf+BcAJxhP ds=; b=odXCUyo0EYp75wEEm1thEZfkpyWj/NV59ad3u8vURrOMyyf+Bscqv32bo 7o2XN5k8SGuFO0ttSRdWhEXeF/YApicdnzyxzqBJJTxtCjm9ovvKKLxft8QSfXHv 2YoIpivLzdbADwo7/T1ZBMD7DipGRKI3nf11NO0OsLk3012ofJWW7DDhM0J2m/40 y/5ECHNNAKbrq3MDfW5WWUC8Bhm/20b/sgxsAeceQYeM3y4BJDFpFgLxsvSQUD8f us9EyjnUHbbREtY/4Y9JFOn4+oqdtbUYc5s5XmarawyMAabkUIDQLP9nOCL909fO zcKSJLt1OGG1rzQ0WiY3vltHRJcvA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrieeigdduiedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0A908328005E; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Marko Kovacevic , Ori Kam , Bruce Richardson , Radu Nicolau , Akhil Goyal , Tomasz Kantecki , dev Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:28:43 +0200 Message-ID: <3046806.VFRClzR3Of@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/11/2019 08:46, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula: > >On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM wrote: > >> > >> From: Pavan Nikhilesh > >> > >> 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 > >> --- > >> 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 ;)