22/02/2022 16:13, 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. > > That's true till some extent, though from other side > even without further rework that patch improves situation > from what we have right now. > So I don't see any harm here.
It is adding a lot of code to an example which is already too big. There are a lot of complain about the size of l3fwd. That's why I think it makes sense to require this extra code (not demonstrating anything, but just for testing convenience) outside of the example.
