22/02/2022 11:39, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > >> Or have a generic library for reading LPM entries. L3fwd is > > > > > >> supposed > > > > > >> to be as small as possible (it no longer is), and the real work > > > > > >> should > > > > > >> be done by libraries to make it easier to build other applications. > > > > > > > > > > > > I never heard users ask about such thing, > > > > > > but if there is a demand for that, then I suppose it could be > > > > > > considered. > > > > > > CC-ing LPM/FIB maintainers to comment. > > > > > > Though I believe it should be a subject of separate patch and > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > (I think many questions will arise - what format should be, how to > > > > > > support > > > > > > different types of user-data, to make it generic enough, etc.). > > > > > > > > > > Agree, it is very application specific, so it could be really > > > > > difficult > > > > > to make it generic. > > > > > > > > But several other also have LPM tables, so why not have common code for > > > > other applications. > > > > > > > > examples/l3fwd-power/main.c > > > > examples/ipsec-secgw/rt.c > > > > examples/ip_fragmentation/main.c > > > > examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c > > > > examples/ip_reassembly/main.c > > > > > > Ah yes, that's good point. > > > All these examples (except ipsec-secgw) started as l3fwd clones, > > > so all of them have hard-coded LPM (and EM) tables too. > > > Yes it would be good thing to address that problem too, > > > and have some common code (and common routes file format) for all of them. > > > I don't know is that a good idea to introduce parse file function in > > > LPM/FIB library > > > itself, might be better to have something like > > > examples/common/lpm_parse*. > > > Anyway, this is an extra effort, and I think no-one has time for it in > > > 22.03 timeframe. > > > My suggestion would be for 22.03 go ahead with current l3fwd patches, > > > then later we can consider to make it common and update other examples. > > > > I don't think this patch is urgent. > > I suggest taking time to have common code for all examples > > and target a merge in DPDK 22.07. > > Well, yes, from one perspective it not really a critical one, > we do live with hard-coded routes inside l3fwd for nearly 10 year by now. > Though l3fwd is one of mostly used examples inside DPDK and > it is quite a pain to patch/rebuild it each time someone needs to run > l3fwd with a different routing table. > Merging this patch will allow people to use l3fwd for more realistic test > scenarios in a painless manner. > So I believe this patch is really helpful and should be beneficial for the > whole community. > Looking from that perspective, I don't see why it has to be "all or nothing" > attitude here. > Why we can't move one step at a time instead? > That would allow to split and effort in terms of > development/testing/upstreaming/etc.
When a feature is merged, there is less incentives to rework. That's why, when a feature is not urgent, it is better to wait for the complete work.
