> > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:50:20 +0100 > > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Agree that it may help testing to have l3fwd support on the testpmd. > > > > > > Two concerns, > > > 1) Testpmd already too complex. > > > 2) Code duplication. > > > > > > For 1), if the l3fwd can be implemented in testpmd as new, independent > > > forwarding mode, without touching rest of the testpmd, I think it can be > > OK. > > > > > > Not sure how to address 2), also lets say we want to add new feature > > > to l3fwd, where it should go, to the sample or to the testpmd? > > > > The original purpose of l3fwd seems to be getting lost here. > > It was intended as an example, not a complete test or real life application. > The issue is, this app has become an industry standard for performance > comparison between platforms (whether we like it or not). > But, it > does not have a whole lot of debugging capabilities.
Ok, could you list what exactly you think is missed? If we are talking about extra stats, then I still think it is probably easier to add it into l3fwd, then pull whole l3fwd code into test-pmd. > I think adding a L3fwd mode to testpmd will be helpful to keep the sample > application > simpler. Hmm, not sure how these 2 things are linked... Why let say adding fib-fwd into test-pmd will help to decrease l3fwd code complexity?
