Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] examples/l3fwd: merge l3fwd-acl code into l3fwd

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

23/01/2019 20:36, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 1/23/2019 5:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 23/01/2019 18:20, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> >>> 23/01/2019 17:32, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>> On 3/10/2017 8:58 PM, rkerur at gmail.com (Ravi Kerur) wrote:
> >>>>> This patchset merges l3fwd-acl and l3fwd code into common directory.
> >>>>> Adds config file read option to build LPM and EM tables.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ravi Kerur (3):
> >>>>>   examples/l3fwd: merge l3fwd-acl code into l3fwd
> >>>>>   examples/l3fwd: add config file support for lpm
> >>>>>   examples/l3fwd: add config file support for exact
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ravi,
> >>>>
> >>>> These l3fwd patches are in patchwork for a long time, I am updating the patchset
> >>>> as rejected, if it is still relevant please send a new version on top of latest
> >>>> repo.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
> >>>>
> >>>> For reference patches:
> >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/21696/
> >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/21695/
> >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/21697/
> >>>>
> >>>> doc one:
> >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/24211/
> >>>
> >>> This work was going in the right direction.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Totally agree.
> >>
> >>> Konstantin, as the maintainer of the ACL library,
> >>> do you think it is worth to keep this example as standalone or merged?
> >>
> >> My vote is definitely for merging.
> >> That would give us single l3fwd app with 3 different routing methods
> >> (lpm, hash, acl) selectable at run-time, plus routing tables in config file.
> > 
> > OK, so we just need to find a volunteer.
> 
> There was a "Nice to have - Future" section in Roadmap webpage [1], does it help
> putting there?

Yes

> Also we talked about GSOC recently, can this be an item for it?

Yes

Good suggestions :)