On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:02 AM Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> index 51a0ae578..88d31df6d 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> @@ -42,9 +42,17 @@ enum valid_flag {
>
> /** @internal LPM structure. */
> struct __rte_lpm {
> - /* LPM metadata. */
> + /* Exposed LPM data. */
> struct rte_lpm lpm;
>
> + /* LPM metadata. */
> + char name[RTE_LPM_NAMESIZE]; /**< Name of the lpm. */
> + uint32_t max_rules; /**< Max. balanced rules per lpm. */
> + uint32_t number_tbl8s; /**< Number of tbl8s. */
> + /**< Rule info table. */
> + struct rte_lpm_rule_info rule_info[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH];
> + struct rte_lpm_rule *rules_tbl; /**< LPM rules. */
- We hide the rules, is there a reason to keep struct
rte_lpm_rule_info and struct rte_lpm_rule exposed?
- Rather than have translations lpm -> i_lpm, in many places of this
library, we should translate only in the functions exposed to the
user.
Besides, it is a bit hard to read between internal_lpm and i_lpm, I
would adopt a single i_lpm convention for the whole file.
I went and tried to do it (big search and replace + build tests, no
runtime check though).
This results in:
https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/commit/4e61f0ce7cf2ac472565d3c6aa5bb78ffb8f70c9
What do you think?
--
David Marchand
