From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:11:53 +0200 Message-ID: <3128026.nHak02edMh@xps> References: <20170420185448.19162-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF803F@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170519091127.GY14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Mcnamara, John" , "Tahhan, Maryam" , "adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Yigit, Ferruh" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8955E1F5 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 12:11:55 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170519091127.GY14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 19/05/2017 11:11, Ga=EBtan Rivet: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 08:57:01AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > >> 18/05/2017 13:33, Ferruh Yigit: > >> > On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Ga=EBtan 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 shoul= d 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 applicati= ons > >> > > 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 propo= sing. > >> > > >> > And yes it makes sense to use rte_flow to define flows in the librar= y, 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? >=20 > Even outside of lib/librte_ether, wouldn't rte_flow stay dependent on > rte_ether? >=20 > > > >Just a thought: probably move rte_flow.h to lib/librte_net? > >Konstantin >=20 > If we are to move rte_flow, why not lib/librte_flow? There are 3 different things: 1/ rte_flow.h for flow description 2/ rte_flow API in ethdev for HW offloading 3/ SW flow table (this new lib) 2 and 3 will depends on 1. I think moving rte_flow.h in librte_net is a good idea.