<snip> > > 24/02/2022 12:06, 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. > > > > Ok, so your main concern is l3fwd code size increase, right? > > Then would it help if for we'll move file parsing code into a separate > > file(s) (under examples/l3fwd) for now? > > Something like examples/l3fwd/(lpm_em)_route_parse.c. > > Yes it would help to isolate the config file parsing code. > What others think? L3fwd is no more a sample application, suggest moving it to app directory.
>
