From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205141B767 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:40:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2017 01:40:57 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,427,1503385200"; d="scan'208";a="164196216" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2017 01:40:55 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.167]) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:40:54 +0100 From: "Iremonger, Bernard" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , "adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com" , "Singh, Jasvinder" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Iremonger, Bernard" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library Thread-Index: AQHTTBHrKeMjxtKc3EGONSRli7utL6Lx2p6AgADQ9cA= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:40:54 +0000 Message-ID: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C24E055559@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1508679124-5922-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <1508771778-617-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <2082789.j6r8FRWjAK@xps> In-Reply-To: <2082789.j6r8FRWjAK@xps> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNTkxMDk1ZGItNWMyMC00NzAwLTg2MzAtMmY1OTAzNGM1MTkxIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6Ikp0U3hkcTNxWVwvbW9wYVlPQmgwRURjRWJWYVhicXE1OFFlN3hKYm4ycldnPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification 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: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:40:58 -0000 Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 9:59 PM > To: Iremonger, Bernard > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh ; Ananyev, > Konstantin ; Dumitrescu, Cristian > ; adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com; Singh, > Jasvinder ; Mcnamara, John > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library >=20 > 23/10/2017 17:16, Bernard Iremonger: > > The initial implementation is to provide counting of IPv4 five tuple > > packets for UDP, TCP and SCTP, but the library is planned to be as gene= ric > as possible. > > > > The flow information provided by this library is missing to implement > > full IPFIX features, but this is planned to be the initial step. > > > > Flows are defined using rte_flow, also measurements (actions) are > provided by rte_flow. > > To support more IPFIX measurements, the implementation may require > > extending rte_flow in addition to extending this library. > > > > The library uses both flows and actions defined by rte_flow.h so this > > library has a dependency on rte_flow.h > > > > This patch set also contains a set of unit tests for the Flow Classify > > library, patch(4) and a patch(3) containing additional functions added = to the > packet burst generator code. > > > > For further steps, this library may be expanded to benefit from hardwar= e > filters for better performance. > > > > It will be more beneficial to shape this library to cover more use > > cases, please feel free to comment on possible other use cases and desi= red > functionalities. >=20 > I had some feedbacks that this library won't be ready for 17.11. > So I did not review it. >=20 > I suppose you are OK to wait one more release and call for more reviewers= ? This library was not ready for 17.11.RC1 having received some comments just= before the RC1 deadline. It was then targeted for RC2 and we have pulled out all the stops to get it= ready for RC2. It is now at v10 of the patch set, there have been no review comments from = the community (apart from Intel), since RFC v3. I think that there has been ample time for the community to review this pat= ch set, calling for more reviewers at this point is not helpful. The API's of the library are marked as experimental, so there will be no is= sues with ABI breakage, if there are requests for changes later. I am not OK to wait one more release, I believe we have followed the proces= s correctly. Regards, Bernard.