> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pattan, Reshma
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 5:15 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; Dumitrescu,
> Cristian <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Singh, Jasvinder
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal: add new rte color definition
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 11:21 AM
> > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <[email protected]>; Pattan, Reshma
> > <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; Singh, Jasvinder
> > <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal: add new rte color definition
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dumitrescu, Cristian
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 12:16 AM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; Pattan,
> Reshma
> > > <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; Singh, Jasvinder
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal: add new rte color
> > > definition
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:36 PM
> > > > To: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > > > Dumitrescu, Cristian <[email protected]>;
> > > > [email protected]; Singh, Jasvinder
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > Cc: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal: add new rte color
> > > > definition
> > > >
> > > > Hi Reshma,
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_color.h
> > > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_color.h
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000..f4387071b
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_color.h
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > > > > + * Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifndef _RTE_COLOR_H_
> > > > > +#define _RTE_COLOR_H_
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * Color
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +enum rte_color {
> > > > > + RTE_COLOR_GREEN = 0, /**< Green */
> > > > > + RTE_COLOR_YELLOW, /**< Yellow */
> > > > > + RTE_COLOR_RED, /**< Red */
> > > > > + RTE_COLORS /**< Number of colors */ };
> > > >
> > > > Does it really belong to EAL?
> > > > Konstantin
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > > It needs to be visible to multiple libraries: ethdev, meter, sched, as
> > > well as drivers. We'd like to avoid adding more complexity to
> dependencies
> > between libraries.
> > >
> > > It is very generic. EAL common/include is currently the place to put
> > > generic data structures, functions, algs, etc that are widely used by DPDK
> > libraries. Lots of similar examples are easy to find in this folder.
> >
> > I don't think it is *that* generic to be in EAL.
> > Yes it is used by few libs, ethdev and by softnic PMD,
> > but it doesn't look as core dpdk thing to me.
> >
> > >
> > > Where else would you put it?
> >
> > If it defines format of rte_mbuf fileds, then probably new .h inside
> librte_mbuf is
> > a good place.
> > Other alternatives would be rte_ethdev or rte_net.
>
> After going through the lib/Makefile dependencies, I see we can have
> rte_color.h in eal or mbuf library only.
> Cannot keep it inside ethdev or net libraries because these two libraries
> already have dependency on mbuf library, so cannot create loop
> dependency.
>
> Snippet
>
> 1) DEPDIRS-librte_eal := librte_kvargs
>
> 2)DEPDIRS-librte_mbuf := librte_eal librte_mempool
>
> 3)DEPDIRS-librte_ethdev := librte_net librte_eal librte_mempool librte_ring
> DEPDIRS-librte_ethdev += librte_mbuf
> DEPDIRS-librte_ethdev += librte_kvargs
> DEPDIRS-librte_ethdev += librte_cmdline
>
> 4) DEPDIRS-librte_net := librte_mbuf librte_eal
>
> 5) DEPDIRS-librte_meter := librte_eal
>
> Thanks,
> Reshma
Yes, I wound not mind to put this header file in librte_net, it makes sense to
me. But librte_net depends on librte_mbuf, so then librte_net is not an option.
The only two options are librte_eal and librte_mbuf. Between these two, my vote
was librte_eal (as we already have plenty of similar items in
librte_eal/common/include) instead of librte_mbuf, as to me the packet color is
not related to how DPDK decides to pick its packet meta-data.
To me, librte_eal/common/include is still the best option, but I guess I can
live with librte_mbuf in case Konstantin has a hard opinion on it.
What is your choice, Konstantin?
