Re: [RFC] graph/node: feedback and future improvements

["Robin Jarry" <rjarry@redhat.com>]

Robin Jarry, Apr 14, 2024 at 12:35:
> Jerin Jacob, Apr 06, 2024 at 01:11:
> > Great.
> >
> > You may consider improving and/or adding inbuilt nodes for generic 
> > protocol processing. Furthermore, consider contributing on app/graph. 
> > I think, most likely, you should be able to leverage app/graph.
>
> Thanks! I am definitely planning to upstream nodes into DPDK as much as 
> possible. I still need to determine what is the correct level of data 
> path node public API so that the nodes can be agnostic of the control 
> plane implementation.

Hey Jerin,

while working on ARP support [1], I noticed that we need to have 
configurability of nodes (or set of nodes to be more precise) from the 
outside. But the nodes in the set also need to specify metadata that 
they expect from other nodes to store in mbufs.

For now, I have used a single dynamic field which I repurpose for every 
node set depending on the use case [2]. However this raises a question:
how can we make it generic (and agnostic to the application) before 
inclusion in lib/node?

I would be glad to have your opinion on the subject.

Cheers!

[1] https://github.com/rjarry/brouter/commit/e05246f51b736821b6689d40
[2] https://github.com/rjarry/brouter/blob/main/modules/infra/datapath/br_mbuf.h