> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:32 PM > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John > <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Tahhan, Maryam <maryam.tah...@intel.com>; > adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify > library > > 18/05/2017 13:33, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > > > The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Using > > > flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be flexible > > > enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are > > > already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As > > > mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover IPFIX > > > meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think. > > > > > > So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about > > > supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key > > > applications would use to configure their measurements. This should not > > > require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only > > > rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library. > > > > > > Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow > > > representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applications > > > to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the > > > classification has been analyzed. > > > > Thanks for clarification, I see now what you and Konstantin is proposing. > > > > And yes it makes sense to use rte_flow to define flows in the library, I > > will update the RFC. > > Does it mean that rte_flow.h must be moved from ethdev to this > new flow library? Or will it depend of ethdev?
Just a thought: probably move rte_flow.h to lib/librte_net? Konstantin
