On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:37:04 +0000, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > >
[...] > > Yep, that's what my take from the beginning: > > Let's develop a librte_gro first and make it successful, then we can think > > should > > we (and how) put into ethdev layer. > > Let not create a gro library and put the code into librte_net as size is not > a concern yet and it is the best place to put the code. As for ip_frag > someone can move it into librte_net if someone writes the patch. The size of a library _is_ an argument. Not the binary size in bytes, but its API, because that's what the developper sees. Today, librte_net contains protocol headers definitions and some network helpers, and the API surface is already quite big (look at the number of lines of .h files). I really like having a library name which matches its content. The anwser to "what can I find in librte_gro?" is quite obvious. Regards Olivier
