Hi Olivier, George, thanks for following up on that, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:24:25AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote: > Hi, > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:45:32AM +0000, george....@gmail.com wrote: > > > Hi Georgios, > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:30:35AM +0000, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Georgios Katsikas > > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 5:01 AM > > > > > To: olivier.m...@6wind.com > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Georgios Katsikas <george....@gmail.com> > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: Moved cmdline_flow to > > > > > librte_cmdline > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Georgios Katsikas <george....@gmail.com> > > > > Looks like a good idea to move this code to the lib. > > > > cc Adrien the author of this file, app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c. > > > > > > If the command line parsing of rte_flow is something that has some > > > chances to be shared among multiple applications, I agree it makes sense > > > to move it in a library. > > > > > > However, my opinion is that it would be better to have a specific > > > library for it, like librte_flow_cmdline, because I'm not sure that > > > people linking with librte_cmdline always want to pull the rte_flow > > > parsing code. > > >
Why not a .config option to enable its build, instead of a separate library? > > > > > Hi Lu, Oliver, > > > > Thanks for your feedback! > > You have a point here, flow commands are only a subset of the parser. > > Do you want me to create this new library and send another patch? > > Let's first wait for Adrien's feedback, he can have counter-arguments. > > > I guess I have to use librte_cmdline as a template/example for creating the > > librte_flow_cmdline library. > > It can be used as an example for Makefile and .map file. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND
